Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gladstone (humorist)

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 no consensus. Rocketsteam100's proposal to rewrite the article and incorporate the sources raised here is a sensible one; if after that the article still seems lacking, another AFD nomination can be made. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gladstone (humorist)

Gladstone (humorist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, most links are from blogs, youtube, and articles/shows written by subject or from website subject writes for. Soxwon (talk) 23:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's see. There's this from Daily Kos [5], and this from AOL [6], and this from WBEZ in Chicago [7]. Not to mention what should be the self-evident cult following based on hits on Cracked and other places. Such is the paradox of many creative professionals: They're notable because notable media outlets make them so, but said media outlets don't prove notability ... *sigh* We really must fix that. Oh No! It's Faustus37! it is what it is - speak at the tone 01:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned above that the WBEZ article is the closest thing to significant coverage. Nonetheless, the other articles are just links to his videos/posts, not significant coverage. Nothing on Wikipedia is "self-evident"; notability and a cult following must be verified by reliable sources. The sum of links provided does not sufficiently establish notability. -- Wikipedical (talk) 01:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Faustus37 (talk) 00:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Those links posted above are independant coverage. Zulkey is an NPR run blog, in addition to WBEZ, he's been featured on WNFZ many times and he was also a guest speaker at the Edmonton Expo. [8][9] He's also been featured on Holy Taco. I'm also curious as to what satisfies a "cult" gathering at wikipedia. I say this because in regards to his twitter, I found 4 different people with less followers all of whom have wiki articles (Michael Mosley, Anna Camp, David Wong, Claire Zulkey) This establishes precedent, unless you want those people to be removed as well. On a side note, a cursory glance reveals that the poster that initiates this AFD has started ones on two other editors for Cracked.com in the past few days. I'm sensing a vendetta here, but that's not relevant. Rocketsteam
Zulkey is affiliated with NPR? Why, so she is! Twitter notwithstanding, why do we blithely dismiss significant content producers associated with uncontroversially notable media sources ... just because? Say someone like Bob Costas or Tom Brokaw had no significant coverage outside of NBC. By current rules they'd be non-notable. There's something profoundly wrong with that. Oh No! It's Faustus37! it is what it is - speak at the tone 04:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Costas and Brokaw- that's a completely hypothetical argument because they do have significant coverage in reliable sources. AfD is a place to enforce Wikipedia policy, not challenge it. Take that discussion to Wikipedia talk:Notability. -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:ENTERTAINER #2 Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. He has ample things on cracked that get from 300 thousand to up to one and a half million views. So yeah, that's a large fan base already. Dream Focus 16:49, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, the main determination for notability is significant coverage in independent reliable sources, which this writer does not have. Anyway, the "cult following" line in WP:ENTERTAINER does not refer to page views. By that logic, thousands and thousands of clearly non-notable web content producers would be notable including people who post kitten videos and get millions of hits. There needs to be more significant coverage than one interview on an NPR-affiliated blog. -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • A large fan base OR a significant "cult" following. You don't need both. A fan base means people go to see your work, not just one thing, but a series of things you created. Someone who has dozens of things created which get a large number of fans to keep going to them, is clearly a notable entertainer. Dream Focus 20:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would point out that while that's true, the fan base/cult following criteria do not prove nor prove against notability, as WP:ENTERTAINER is part of the Notability page's additional criteria. The main criteria is independent significant coverage in reliable sources, which has not been established. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, that's not how it works. WP:NOTABILITY clearly explains at the top, it is notable if it passes the general notability guidelines by getting coverage in reliable sources, OR if it passes any of the subject specific guidelines. It doesn't have to do both, otherwise the subject specific guidelines wouldn't exist. Dream Focus 13:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Every article absolutely needs to have significant coverage in independent reliable sources. A large Twitter following or large page views does not alone satisfy notability requirements. -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What source is used to arrive at the 300,000 to 1 million page views? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The link provided to his stuff on cracked. [10] Primary sources are fine for things like this if no legitimate reason to doubt them. Dream Focus 17:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is of course in his best interest to appear popular, self-reported popularity is thus not reliable and essentially a form of marketing - we have no way to verify if those numbers are real. Further, web hits as a metric are almost meaningless as they include bots and could include page views vs. unique-user views, or could include repeat visitor views. It's really not a reliable source, nor a reliable metric of popularity. I'm sure there have been conversations about this in the past on Wikipedia, and reason why page views are not included in the Notability guidelines. There is Alexa.com for ranking websites, it includes cracked.com but nothing specific for Gladstone. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made it clear it is a summary of the rule, and what the rule is. 42 is not "mislabeled" to be "official". The reason I used 42 here is because so many people in this discussion seem to be confused about the core principal of notability which 42 is particularly effective at communicating in a short and easy to understand way. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is labeled as an "information page" instead of an essay. And it has incorrect and very misleading information. Use the guideline page as well. Its very clear, GNG or one of the SSG, is fine, you not needing both. Dream Focus 16:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Actually, you do need both. If the additional criteria is challenged, you need the GNG to show notability. The very same guideline that contains WP:ENT also says that "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.". So as far as I can tell, you do need the GNG as well. Bjelleklang - talk 20:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have never needed both. The WP:NOTABILITY guideline is quite clear. And they say "presumed" there, and likely at other places, and whatnot. They don't like to be definite on anything since guidelines are suggestions, not absolute law like policies are. Dream Focus 20:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The additional criteria in WP:BIO, including WP:ENT doesn't replace the GNG, but are an addition to it. As others have pointed out, the number of page views or twitter followers doesn't qualify for WP:ENT#2; they can both be faked, and as said above it's in the subjects own interest to appear to be popular. We don't know what the number of views include, and we have no way of verifying it, so it more or less counts as a "self-published" source, or at least one that isn't independent of the subject. #3 is quite broad, but I really don't see what he's done that is so unique or innovative from any of the links here, or in the article. (In addition there are at least four dead sources in the article.) And then we're really only left with the GNG, which also seem to fail, at least as far as I can tell. Bjelleklang - talk 20:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Implying that Gladstone would manipulate page views to make himeself look better is absolutely asinine. If that's the case, why not increase it to a million? 2 million? Articles on that site have sometimes generated 10 million views. It's also unfair to dismiss his fan base on twitter purely because its twitter. As was mentioned before, how else do you judge a fan base? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.228.145.48 (talk) 04:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point is notability requires reliable sources independent of the subject. If the subject is employed by Cracked, one cannot simply cite Cracked as a source for popularity. Establishing that someone has a large fan base can actually be done pretty simply on Wikipedia- by citing independent reliable sources that make the claim. Citing a Twitter following as a large fan base – making an original claim – is not sufficient nor appropriate. -- Wikipedical (talk) 04:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you do a quick search for it on places like Google, you'll find several sites who allow you to buy Twitter followers. And this is the primary reason for why the number of Twitter followers don't count. As for jacking up the number of views; who knows. But we can't verify it through other means, so therefore it can't count for notability. Bjelleklang - talk 19:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I have said, the only significant coverage in reliable sources of those five is the WBEZ/NPR article, which I grant is an interview on a news site. However, the other four are at best mere mentions of Gladstone or links to his content, not speaking to his fan base in the slightest. You cannot establish someone's notability on Wikipedia by linking to someone's content or mentioning their upcoming speaking engagements. -- Wikipedical (talk) 05:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, now this is getting ridiculous. Of the five places, 4 invited him to discuss and talk about something he has created, whether it be an article or video. To dismiss all of them without even clicking the links and listening is just shoddy. For those of you watching at home, click the links. Other than Daily Kos, all of those radio programmes invited Gladstone to an interview. And the Edmonton Expo (which already fucking happened) invited him not to "merely mention him" but as a guest speaker BECAUSE of his work with Cracked/Comedy Central/Funny or Die/ Collegehumor.
  • Let's stay civil. I did listen to the podcasts- Gladstone is on the line making jokes about various subjects like sexting. Gladstone is not the subject. On Wikipedia one cannot make the logical leap that he was invited as a guest speaker at the Edmonton Expo because he is notable without citing a source. I hope you understand that that statement is an original claim. -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your arguing for WP:ENTERTAINER but it will still need to pass WP:GNG which requires multiple reliable sources about the subject so that we can write an article with. Those podcasts aren't usable in writing an encyclopedia article. See WP:WHYN: "We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic." The podcasts are not significant coverage because there is nothing we can say about Gladstone using them as a source. Besides the WBEZ source. One source is not enough to pass GNG. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Having a loud mouth doesn't mean you are culturally significant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.62.161.188 (talk) 16:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • As it is, the entertainer does not need to be culturally significant to be notable. He needs significant coverage in other reliable news organizations. He clearly has that, 3 radio programs, 1 NPR run site, and a panel at a comic convention. Even if you ignore the last one, that's still enough.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.228.145.48 (talk • contribs)
Again, you are confusing coverage by the subject with coverage about the subject. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They're interviewing him about something he wrote, is that not coverage about the subject? "coverage by the subject" would mean HE is creating it and/or taking credit. That's not the case here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.228.145.48 (talk) 18:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • But why is wbez the only one that works? Is it that WBEZ is inherently better than WNFZ or WHRW? Or because WBEZ only focuses on gladstone generally, and not specifically on something he made? if its the latter, that's not fair. there are dozens of authors or comedians who have only been interviewed because of their book or movie, hell, that's what all of late night talk show is. The fact stands, and no one has refuted it, Gladstone has been "covered" in four different, independent, and reliable places. The links have been posted a few times by a few different people, so its all here. Arguing about semantics is getting us nowhere. SO lets discuss specifically why the other 2 interviews don't work. --Rocketsteam100 (talk) 22:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is significant coverage of Gladstone in the WBEZ article because he is the subject of that article. The other links either embed one of his videos or have him on to make jokes. They can be considered promotional or content, not coverage. Moreover, on Wikipedia one is not notable for merely appearing on a late night talk show (or a podcast or Edmonton Expo or having 15,000 Twitter followers). Unless you can find another reliable source to claim notability (the podcasts are questionable anyway), this isn't really a discussion but an enforcement of policy. If Gladstone were so notable, finding another reliable source should not be so difficult. -- Wikipedical (talk) 23:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "If Gladstone were so notable, finding another reliable source should not be so difficult." Holy Taco[16]. Look, I'm not saying Gladstone is the next Jay Leno, I'm just saying he meets the bare requirements of notability. I would argue that the other shows do constitute significant coverage. WNFX[17] has[18] had[19] him[20] on a[21] lot of[22] times,[23] just like in general.[24]. So, there's that. And none of these interviews are them bringing him on just "to make jokes". They're specifically asking him about the subject content on his articles. And anyway, you can't accuse a comedian for making jokes when on air. Surely, the butt-load of links I just dumped is enough to constitute bare coverage, or is it not because its the same place? Rocketsteam100 (talk) 02:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposal That this page be re-written with all the relevant sources that have no come up but are no where present in its current writing. If, after a full re-write by either the original author or another poster (who would presumably volunteer here), he is still seen as non-notable, we can hold another discussion. I understand why Wikipedia deletes pages, especially for non-notable people. Normally, pages that are deleted of people have absolutely no coverage at all. However in this case, its abundantly clear that while there are independent places covering him, their significance is in question. As such, I think we should re-write the page instead of deleting it. Personally, I always viewed deletion at Wikipedia as a last resort, I've seen the ARS do whole re-writes or merges or whatever to try and save a page before. So why not now? Rocketsteam100 (talk) 02:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.