Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Lee Adams


 * 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 01:55, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

William Lee Adams

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is one of the rare convenient cases where I can just point at the sources and say "zero indication of independent coverage". Really, it's the perfect storm down there. Could not reach WP:NBIO with a spring-loaded pole. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:43, 14 August 2019 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:43, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:31, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:31, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:31, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:BEFORE and WP:BASIC. Article was originally a redirect to Wiwibloggs, but a rudimentary search finds his opinion on Eurovision matters quoted in a major newspaper of record, which I have added to the article, and this. Possibly passes WP:JOURNALIST for his 5-year stint at Time, columns written for The New York Times and others; and CREATIVE for starting a notable niche blog, the article of which isn't appropriate to place all the biographical detail. StonyBrook (talk) 02:33, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Ref #2 does not add anything; it's an interview with the guy about Eurovision. People having their opinion quoted is NOT in itself evidence of notability. The WPost article I can't view because it chokes on my browser settings. Can you quote some pertinent material in there that covers Adams? BTW, I don't see which of the four points at WP:JOURNALIST/WP:CREATIVE (same section) a 5-year employment at Time is supposed to satisfy? -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * From WaPo: "I think the English have a complex; they need to stop blaming Europe and look inside themselves," said William Lee Adams, the American editor and chief of wiwibloggs.com, a Eurovision fan site. "I mean, have you seen Bonnie Tyler? She looks like a reanimated corpse on stage. That’s just not going to stand up to Sweden. She was big in the ’80s, but someone needs to tell them this is 2013." He is being quoted here as a top reviewer of Eurovision in the English language, which I think is significant. The interview in NPR adds to that assessment. Regarding WP:CREATIVE, The person is regarded as an important figure, in this case in regards to his focus on Eurovision, or is widely cited by peers or successors, could be said about being quoted on said Eurovision; The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, which I would argue can be applied to Wiwibloggs. Your point is well taken on Time, but it can be added into the mix. StonyBrook (talk) 18:20, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I vote Keep. As a crazed Eurovision fan I can assure you that William Lee Adams is one of the most relevant figures in the Eurovision world nowadays. His 5 years in Time are hardly relevant to why he would be considered a notable character, but since he's a really prominent figure in BBC nowadays (specifically in the context of Eurovision) and Wiwibloggs is an extremely popular news outlet that Adams founded and now owns and runs. I'd like to add that he also manages a YouTube channel with approx. 80 million total views, which together with his precedence in the field of ESC coverage probably makes it qualify for N. He should definitely be considered WP:CREATIVE anyway, because he falls under criteria #1, #2:
 * - The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors (eurovision.tv often refers to articles written by him and other news sites tend to interview him about subjects pertaining to Eurovision).
 * - The person is known for originating a significant new [...] concept (Eurovision-centered coverage was not a thing when William Lee Adams founded Wiwibloggs, and he was the first of many to create a site based around this niche topic).
 * I agree with the previously stated argument in this matter. The page should stay as we're talking about someone who not only has created a website present on all major social media platforms where it achieved major success within its genre, but also is prominently featured on professional articles and other matters. He's co-writing for important websites such as Billboard and furthermore was included in a show on Swedish television or interviewed for other channels such as an Ukrainian news programme. Taking into consideration his recent activity as well as the success his work spawns on a global scale, I vote Keep.
 * Not seeing any convincing policy-based arguments here. None of the sources provided, or newly added, demonstrate that he has received in-depth coverage from independent sources. Passing mentions, list entires and bio stubs by employers don't do the job. And "I've heard of this person and am a fan of what he talks about" doesn't either. His blog may be notable; he has not been shown to be. Sources or bust, people. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:04, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - nothing notable here - popularity does not establish notability - no substantial coverage in the references per WP:BASIC, many refs are to his own articles and social media: WP:REFBOMBING in order to WP:MASK lack of notability - therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 21:49, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. He's a blogger about reality shows. How is that notable? Bearian (talk) 18:30, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 19:03, 22 August 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:44, 30 August 2019 (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.