Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DMurawski: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 20:15, 4 May 2008

DMurawski

Subject does not appear to be notable. Just another YouTube user. Paradox society 07:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Delete per nom as non-notable YouTube vblogger --Deadly∀ssassin 07:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete, as he is a notable YouTube vblogger. He has been featured in higher ranking member's videos many times, and 750,000 views do not lie. Wikipedia states anything with hundreds of thousands of views is worth noting in the site. Therefore, it is validated. To have some person like Deadly Assassin delete the article based on their OPINION that the article is not valid... is just not what wikipedia stands for. The statistics do not lie. He is worth noting, as not many YouTube users have earned those stats on their own without being featured. 750,000 views, 100,000 page clicks, & 2,400 fans = not even close to being not worth noting. 71.193.87.216 (talk) 08:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC) — 71.193.87.216 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Do you have any WP:reliable, published sources independant of the blogger himself and of Youtube, i.e. news reports, articles, or books describing him and his vblog? If not, the article will have to be deleted as the information in the article cannot be independantly verified as accurate and correct, and as not meeting the WP:Verifiability core policy, and possibly not meeting the WP:No original research or WP:Neutral point of view core policies. -- saberwyn 08:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. You may want to take a look at WP:BIGNUMBER, which says, essentially, that having a large number of anything isn't a valid source of notability. AnturiaethwrTalk 12:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Of course it's my opinion, I'm not sure whose opinion you think users should be putting forward. AfD discussions are there for editors in the Wikipedia community to come to consensus on whether an article should be deleted/redirected/etc based upon Wikipedia policy. --Deadly∀ssassin 19:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He may have many YouTube views but there are no reliable and independent sources to back up claims, and such it fails WP:N notability policy. Atyndall93 | talk 09:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable per WP policy. JuJube (talk) 10:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Could have been speedied. Vanity article for a YouTube user. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just delete it.--Berig (talk) 12:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable article. Macy (Review me!) 14:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I can find some proof for the 750,000 views. Plus, I would like to note -- it's easy to be a pointless Wikipedian that doesn't actual consider an article before saying DELETE, but it is noble to actually consider one. I'm not even a member and I feel more fair, which I find sad. What is the point of deleting an article that fans of the subject enjoy reading? It isn't even poorly written. Clue me in? 71.193.87.216 (talk) 20:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update - I have found that DMurawski has 800,000 views, not 700,000. Nearly one million views and climbing is pretty noteworthy. That's a lot of eyeballs... once I put the reference up, you might have to succumb and take it off Deletion Debate. There's no Wikipedia rule stating something with 800,000 clicks is not noteworthy, and if so, please cite it. 71.193.87.216 (talk) 20:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)— 71.193.87.216 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment Please read Anturiaethwr's comment above and read WP:BIGNUMBER to understand why this line of argument is likely not to help you. --Deadly∀ssassin 20:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article Validated I, the person the article is about, have validated it. I posted an article on my official blog, with photo evidence of both my 800,000 video views and 100,000 channel views. If you could be so kind as to click references 1 & 2 on the article, you will see it no longer is not sourced. As to the request of Saberwyn, I can and will find articles other have written about me. I did NOT write this article about myself, but I can and will validate it, because it rightfully can be validated. Dmurawski (talk) 20:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notice The notice that was put up is flattering, but there will be no fanboys and girls debating on this if I can help it. With the sources I presented, whoever created this article is now validated in doing so. If there are sources to back the statistics and noteworthiness, there should be no debate any longer. As well, the notice says merit is judged... I urge whoever decides on the deletion: check the article, because all the statistics are backed up, and it is proven valid. Dmurawski (talk) 20:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Neither of those references are independent, and neither of them assert the notability behind the number, even if it is a big one. WilliamH (talk) 21:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Per WP:BIGNUMBER. View counts are notoriously unreliable and open to manipulation too. Yellowspacehopper (talk) 21:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One of many non-notable people who posts videos on Youtube. Vanity article that leaves me wondering, "Who cares?" Equally notable for being a Wikipedia vandal (see here and here). GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response Leaves me wondering "do you have a life? or at least some sources to back your claims?" Tell me how someone with success is non-noteworthy. Besides that, the basic fact remains that Derek Murawski is a YouTube partner, which is a very hard program to enter. When YouTube selects you to make money off your content, you obviously have some power on the site. You may think I'm ignorant, but obviously you do not see how pathetic it appears to others when you have power to say "delete -- not noteworthy"... despite your total lack of research, other than your sickening knowledge of some rules written by decrepit nerds with no lives. Good day, sir. 71.193.87.216 (talk) 14:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:N for lack of reliable sources. Deor (talk) 22:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Also, I find it very suspicious that this article was originally created by an editor with a SINGLE edit, and utilized a photo that was uploaded by Dmurawski a mere 18 minutes prior to the article's creation... I suspect this may be an instance of sockpuppetry, though I could be wrong... Paradox society (review) 05:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great minds think alike. I wondered about the same thing which is why I have opened a RFCU case. It will be interesting to see the results. --Deadly∀ssassin 07:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh Dear.: Maybe you should contact the author of the article before you jump to suspicion. I love how all you people pride yourself on your understanding of Wikipedia rules. Go play with your kids for once... if you have any. 71.193.87.216 (talk) 14:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC) — 71.193.87.216 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Actually, I think it's worth valuing an understanding of Wikipedia's guidelines, because with it comes the ability to assert your point legitimately, instead of resorting to ad hominem attacks on participants in the discussion. It seems reasonably clear that even though the subject has had many views, the growing consensus is that there are no sources which offer independent commentary on why the subject is notable. My advice is if you have them, add them, but at no point will personal attacks advance your position. WilliamH (talk) 16:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Star Tribune Interview

The Minneapolis Star Tribune will be doing an article on me soon, so therefore I am noteworthy enough to be featured in a respected paper. Once the interview is up, this article will be backed by an outside source, and therefore validated. I urge the final decider not to delete the page someone created of me, due to this fact. For now, the sources hold true -- the photographical evidence of source #1 was provided by me, and clearly shows that the 800,000 views are real. I don't own a robot refresh program, so the notion that they were attained with fraud is preposterous. Dmurawski (talk) 20:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 33: / Line 33: @@
 :*'''Oh Dear.''': Maybe you should contact the author of the article before you jump to suspicion. I love how all you people pride yourself on your understanding of Wikipedia rules. Go play with your kids for once... if you have any. [[Special:Contributions/71.193.87.216|71.193.87.216]] ([[User talk:71.193.87.216|talk]]) 14:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC) <small>— [[User:71.193.87.216|71.193.87.216]] ([[User talk:71.193.87.216|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/71.193.87.216|contribs]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. {{ #if:  | The preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added at {{{2}}} (UTC).}}</small>
 ::*Actually, I think it's worth valuing an understanding of Wikipedia's guidelines, because with it comes the ability to assert your point legitimately, instead of resorting to ad hominem attacks on participants in the discussion. It seems reasonably clear that even though the subject has had many views, the growing consensus is that there are no sources which offer independent commentary on why the subject is notable. My advice is if you have them, add them, but at no point will personal attacks advance your position.  [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] ([[User talk:WilliamH|talk]]) 16:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
+==Star Tribune Interview==
+The [[Minneapolis]] [[Star Tribune]] will be doing an article on me soon, so therefore I am noteworthy enough to be featured in a respected paper. Once the interview is up, this article will be backed by an outside source, and therefore validated. I urge the final decider not to delete the page someone created of me, due to this fact. For now, the sources hold true -- the photographical evidence of source #1 was provided by me, and clearly shows that the 800,000 views are real. I don't own a robot refresh program, so the notion that they were attained with fraud is preposterous. [[User:Dmurawski|Dmurawski]] ([[User talk:Dmurawski|talk]]) 20:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)