Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whataboutadam


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was delete. The content of the References section consists of images of supposed articles about this person, not the articles themselves, and as such are not verifiable, reliable sources. Relevance and notability outside YouTube have not been established. I've held off the salt for now, but another recreation should be speedied and then protected. Six times is enough. - Krakatoa  Katie  14:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Whataboutadam

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This has been speedied and recreated five times times (indeed, I speedily deleted once myself.) However, I think "interviewed by the Sunday Times" is enough of an assertion of importance to avoid speedy deletion. Notability may be a concern, however, depending on the quality of the other items in "Media appearances". Marasmusine (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete possibly salt. It depends on one's interpretation of WP:N, but dispite the references given, I do not believe Notability is satisfied. -Verdatum (talk) 21:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I speedied it once because it provides no real references to notability; the only reliable one seems to be the Sunday Times, but the article can't hinge on one and only one source... Master of Puppets Care to share?  22:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Whilst I agree with you, WP:Speedy is "distinct from questions of notability, verifiability and reliability of sources" Marasmusine (talk) 22:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Falls short of WP:BIO at the moment, but good luck to him - he seems less annoying than Chris Crocker, anyway... if there's more press coverage in future we could consider having an article on him, but not yet.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 22:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - I got interviewed by the Chicago Tribune several times .... that does not qualify as notability. Though h i s is correct.  Should more references come up later, then notability may be established for an article. LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per MoP's reasoning above. Also, I noticed that the links to the articles are in fact only scans of the printed articles - I'm not arguing the fact that they were made, however in the form they are currently presented, they are not reliable. The scans provide no information about which issue they are from, so a citation cannot be made for the printed article based on the scans. Searches for "Whataboutadam" and the article's title on the Sunday Times' site provide no hits either. If reliable sources in reliable formats can be provided, I may reconsider, but I still find the notability questionable and the article is presented as a vanity piece. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 23:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. He needs to be the subject of verifiable reliable sources. The JPS talk to me  23:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

10,000 is a LOT for youtube
 * Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruthieeness (talk • contribs) 11:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * a video a fan of his didto one of his radio1 interveiws And on top of that hes had a few other radio one interveiws, but sadly he deleted the videos containing them.
 * He has a steady audience of over 10,000 and here is proof, subscribers = audience
 * On youtube he is #93 most subscribed (biggest audience) of all time [directors] and you can also see hat by clicking on his page.

Youtube is now literally the internet version of TV and almost as popular as TV Ruthieeness (talk) 11:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * One big difference is that TV programming has editorial oversight. Marasmusine (talk) 15:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.