[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derek Murawski

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Murawski

[edit]
Derek Murawski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable alleged Youtube celebrity. He supposedly has "a worldwide audience of millions," yet still only 172 unique Google hits, and nothing to support inclusion under WP:BIO.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 20:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are millions of viewers If you read the article by Elyse Kaner, you would see solid proof of this. Please do your fact checking before you propose it for deletion because you alone think it's not notable. Iongatherer (talk) 04:09, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: The mere fact that his videos have amassed a few million views doesn't in itself make him notable; in fact, I don't really see anything here that does assert notability as far as Wikipedia's guidelines are concerned. Please also assume good faith and not assume nobody has done their research just because they find the subject unimportant enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. KaySL (talk) 08:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Normally, I'd say speedy delete it due to lack of notability and possible vanity material, but there is a precedent so far which has seen other YouTube celebrities have their own articles; for example, TheHill88, Sxephil, and of course Chris Crocker. I'd have to say delete though, assuming others agree, as this guy doesn't even have what makes the three mentioned previously notable, which is, err... notability, though even theirs is ultimately disputable. KaySL (talk) 20:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Vanity material? I am not Derek Murawski, nor do I know him personally. There is no evidence to say that he even knows I have written this article yet. Iongatherer (talk) 04:09, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: I did use the term 'possibly', though the wording of parts of the article can be construed as being overly-flattering in tone. The main problem with the article is that no subject notability is asserted. KaySL (talk) 08:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: If so, I would invite you to make any edits you feel necessary. It is a public encyclopedia, after all. Iongatherer (talk) 08:50, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment: As I said above, the main issue with the article isn't its tone, style or layout; it's with his notability. Being an internet celebrity isn't grounds for inclusion on Wikipedia. In addition, as far as fans are concerned, they appear to be limited, at least as far as raw numbers of subscribers are concerned. I appreciate your desire to keep the article, since you created it, but I'm just stating facts here. KaySL (talk) 08:56, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe it should be deleted. I did my homework on this article, and did it on my userpage/only made it public when it was complete. It has 15 sources and is well-written. There are sources for all of the claims made in this article. It is not a vanity piece. As I mentioned before on Derek Murawski's talk page, an article about an actor who, like Derek Murawski, is a graduate of Blaine High School has not been deleted in the 3+ years it has been on Wikipedia... and it has ZERO sources! Check it out for yourself: Blaine Hogan That sort of tiny, source-less article skates by untouched for over three years, but a well-written & formatted article with many sources (including a major Twin Cities metro newspaper & *NSFW* site called DudeTubeOnline with over 1,000,000 visitors each week) is considered for deletion? This makes no sense. And, arguably, Derek Murawski has more achievements than Blaine, as well as dedicated fans who make screen names, pages, videos, etc related to him. I am literally so confused it tires me. Murawski's obvious notability over Hogan in itself proves the article's notability -- as if the fifteen sources didn't already. Iongatherer (talk) 04:09, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tentative keep. Yes, I did tag this for speedy deletion at one point, but then, this was used as a source. The general notability guideline speaks of multiple reliable third party sources, and this is just one, probably not sufficient either. But I would err on the side of caution here to give the creator some time to dig for more references. As an aside, I would tell the creator that "one million viewers" is not an assertion of notability, as this is actually the number of times the file has been viewed, including repeat viewers and web spiders, and the number of times the file has been viewed by the uploader himself. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 05:00, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Yeah, Blaine Hogan doesn't look very notable, but then see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Also, as I said in part in response to a comment on my talk page,

[A]s far as I can tell, ABC Newspapers amounts to the "Anoka County Union, Blaine-Spring Lake Park Life, Coon Rapids Herald, [and] Anoka County Shopper." For a high school kid, getting some coverage in his local town paper isn't bad, but you've got to admit it's not exactly the New York Times. Heck, if the Strib covered him it might be a different story. I'll admit he's somewhat more notable than most of the Myspace bands and YouTube kids who try to create articles (we delete as many of those as possible). However, I don't think he's at all notable enough (yet) to pass WP:BIO, or for his videos to pass WP:WEB. I couldn't care less about YouTube celebrities, and yet I've seen Chris Crocker probably a hundred times—now that's notability./blockquote>

And although I don't want to sign up to find out, it looks like his Twitter has 839 followers and his official fan forum has 14 members. (Can that possibly be right?) I'm not trying to slam the guy, but Blanchard is right that a raw pageview number doesn't tell the whole story. I've dug for references, and haven't come up with anything more. And while the author is right that the page is well-written and well-cited, with the exception of the ABC Newspapers article those citations all prove the truth of facts, not the notability of the subject. I appreciate the debate, though, so thanks for listening--  Glenfarclas  (talk) 05:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You could not be any more wrong about the member count... I am a member, and here is proof that there are 196 members http://i48.tinypic.com/2n7pmaq.png

It should be noted that if you go to the main link I provide to his most accomplished page, his YouTube, he has over 8,5000 fans/subscribers. You also see that there is no advertisement of his official website. In addition to this, there is no recent activity for months on this website. I provided the link because it says it's the "official"... but that doesn't mean it's an accurate representation of his popularity, or is at all active. Also, there is no link to his Twitter account. I would say 800+ followers is pretty damn good for no advertisement. In addition, his almost all of his videos are featured in search results, and he is a YouTube partner. I believe the notability lies in the facts that are proven. A well-sourced article like this could probably not be made about any of us, therefore in itself it proves the subject's prowess online and the interest in them. It should also be noted that being on iTunes & charting is no easy feat. Iongatherer (talk) 08:48, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I've stressed the point several times, but I'll say it again, then back out of this debate for a bit until others contribute. The subject fails both WP:ANYBIO and WP:MUSICBIO, therefore no justification by way of pointing out numbers of subscribers, iTunes listing, etc. is sufficient. KaySL (talk) 09:32, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless notability is established. I don't think other bad examples justify keeping this. Just means we all need to do the review work a bit more thoroughly. And this page can return when and if... Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 12:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice if more people take notice. The only genuinely third-party reference is a human-interest piece in a local newspaper. Mangoe (talk) 14:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Granted I am the subject, but I have recently noticed this article through a Google Alert I received... I read the conversations about it, and honestly I have to agree with the fan who wrote it. It is an excellently written article. As far as a second source, I can say I have a possible Star Tribune article in the works for my album release & definitely another one with ABC Newspapers. I would say that because the consensus seems to be "keep if there are more sources because it's good," you should postpone this deletion or somehow put it in the original author's sandbox for later posting (when there are more sources). Thanks for the interest! Dmurawski (talk) 17:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Mister Murawski, the consensus before your comment was weighted 2:1 in favour of deleting the article. Bmclaughlin9 was in favour of keeping the article only if notability could be established under WP:BIO and/or WP:BAND; he did not state that such notability exists. Therefore the only real consensus (shared by Bmclaughlin9, Mangoe, and myself) is to delete the article. On a side note, would you and Iongatherer happen to know each other, only there are striking similarities between him and another user you once collaborated closely with on this article; namely Jorotayahbl, who was found to be a sockpuppet operated by you. KaySL (talk) 23:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. I have never corresponded with such a person. And the last time someone made an article about me was a while back... FOR the record, Jorotayahbl is NOT a sockpuppet... no matter which Wikipedia "wiz" found this, she's actually my close friend Leah who decided I she felt I should have an article. Sue me for having friends with internet connections & access to a public website. That is all. Dmurawski (talk) 08:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the findings reflect Wikipedia's official stance on the matter, so as far as we or they are concerned, the account was created for sockpuppeting purposes; the timing of your mutual edits for one were quite suspicious, and the similarities and apparent close connection between Iongatherer and yourself doesn't help matters, and neither does the fact that neither of you seem able to justify this article's existence under Wikipedia's guidelines. Sorry if I sound confrontational here, it's not my intention; I'm just trying to get to the bottom of the matter. KaySL (talk) 15:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would make it an even 2:2 now Iongatherer (talk) 08:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately AfD isn't a voting station; it is a place to reach proper consensus, but failing that, pointing out a lack of notability of any relevant articles usually suffices for having cruft removed. KaySL (talk) 15:54, 27 December 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Derek_Murawski&oldid=1148682886"