Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Guttenplan (2nd nomination)

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 keep. Keep arguments are stronger regarding coverage. And apart from issues with characterizing everything here as "one event," note also that WP:BLP1E expressly applies only to low profile individuals: "Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable." It should be obvious how that applies to someone who chose to appear on nationally broadcast television multiple times. postdlf (talk) 16:50, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Guttenplan

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Alexander Guttenplan (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)

As per the "one event" concept, this page should be deleted because the person in question is notable for only one event (winning university challenge). This is a yearly competition, which decreases its notability even more. There is also the fact that none of the other winners for this year, or indeed any year, have articles about them (except if they went on to become notable for some other reason). If people consider this person an especially notable winner, they should add a note to the page University Challenge 2009–10, where he is mentioned. Benboy00 (talk) 02:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Aside from the winning of University challenge he has become an internet legend and household name in his own right. Jamesmcmahon0 (talk) 09:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was not able to find evidence of his status as either an "internet legend" or a household name. I did find his facebook page, which had 95 likes, and a few (extremely short) 2010 news articles from just after he won. I still think this comes under the heading not-notable as per WP:BLP1E. Benboy00 (talk) 09:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 14:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plenty of coverage of this person specifically in mainstream media which passes WP:GNG. Warden (talk) 16:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you look further down that page at WP:NOTABILITY#T, you can see that, similar to WPBLP1E, "In particular, if reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." This is undoubtably the case. It is on this basis, and for the reasons I stated before, that I think that the vote on this article should be Delete. Benboy00 (talk) 17:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The subject's reputation was established in multiple events across several months, climaxing in a final watched by millions. They pass WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:SPORTCRIT by virtue of their acclaimed performance and following, as documented in multiple reliable sources per WP:GNG. Warden (talk) 17:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am not questioning the reliability of the sources, nor am I questioning the number of such sources. What I am saying is that he is notable for only a single event, i.e. winning university challenge while beating back at Paxman (or something). I would dispute that he has a following, noting that he has less than 200 followers on twitter, and less than 100 likes on facebook in the past 3 years. Many, many people have won University Challenge. They were all in a final, and all (or almost all) of these finals were watched by millions. There are many articles on the winners of University Challenge, yet none of them have a page (unless, as I said before, they were notable for another reason). All of the WP:NOTABILITY guidelines you point to seem to be overruled by WP:BLP1E if you click the links in the guidelines. I notice that you are the creator of this page, and so perhaps are somewhat biased towards its existence, although I would be happy to be proved wrong. Nevertheless, in summary, this person is not suitable for a biography because he is mentioned only in connection to one reasonably unnotable event, and apparently does not have any significant following. Again, I would suggest that, if people still think that he is slightly more notable than other UC winners, a note be put on the page UC 2010. Benboy00 (talk) 18:25, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • WP:AFD indicates that the creator of an article should be notified but the nominator did not do this in this case; I found the discussion in the course of routine patrolling. Our procedures expect article authors to participate in the discussion as they naturally will have a good understanding of the topic. To suggest that this is bias is absurd. Also absurd is the repeated clinging to BLP1E when the subject participated in multiple events and was celebrated in a specific way for their outstanding personal performances. BLP1E is directed at people like the subject's team mates - spear carriers who had a supporting role rather than a lead one. Warden (talk) 12:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • First off, I apologize for not notifying you, I am not too familiar with the deletion process and assumed it would notify you automatically. Second, the reason I point out bias is not just because you are the creator, but because you also, in violation of wikipedia policy, removed a speedy delete tag from this article when you are the creator. This is not allowed. It would imply that you had no good reason to suggest for keeping the article, but you did not want it deleted. This screams "bias" to me. BLP1E is most certainly applicable here. He participated in, and is known for, one event, and that is the final and arguing with Paxman. There is not even a hint in the BLP1E section about anything about spear carriers. Again, I would like to point out: you are saying that this person is notable for being part of the winning team of a yearly, uk competition which has been going on for more than 50 years. The only difference between this person and any of those other people is that a few articles say that he has a cult following. There is no evidence of this. Literally none. If you can find anything that actually demonstrates a cult following, or any sort of significant cult impact, then I will concede that this person is notable. Until then, however, i find myself coming to the conclusion that this person is not notable, is low profile, and this article should be deleted. Benboy00 (talk) 13:39, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would also question whether the guidelines that you quote are relevant. For example, WP:ENTERTAINER seems like it is written for career entertainers, and WP:SPORTCRIT clearly states that it is for Sports personalities, which is clearly irrelevant to this topic. Benboy00 (talk) 18:25, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • WP:ENTERTAINER includes celebrities with a "a significant cult following" and our subject had this, as documented by reliable sources. WP:SPORTCRIT seems appropriate for mental sports as well as physical ones. Why should we discriminate? Warden (talk) 12:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • First off, Sport. It is not discrimination, it is being accurate. Just because something is a game or competition, does not mean it is a sport. Then, as I said before, there is 0 evidence of any actual cult following. He is not famous on social networks, nor is there any mention of him outside of news articles from that short period of time (as far as I could tell). Benboy00 (talk) 13:39, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have so many articles of this kind that we subdivide them by country. See category:Game show contestants. This includes other outstanding participants in University Challenge such as Gail Trimble, who likewise attracted special attention and has been kept repeatedly at AFD. These examples demonstrate that Peterkingiron's belief is a personal opinion, unsupported by evidence or policy. Warden (talk) 12:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I dont really think that the Gail Trimble article should have been kept, we are not debating whether that article should be deleted. You could argue that she was notable because of her cultural impact, although that reporting seems to be ridiculously sensationalist, or that this team was especially notable because it won and then was disqualified (and as the captain, she was notable?). As you yourself said, she was apparently the greatest contestant of all time, and was subject to a hate campaign, which may make her more notable. She also apparently became important to the sexism debate. Alexander guttenplan has had none of these things happen. I also notice that during that debate, you quoted things like WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:ANYBIO, which again, are not really relevant. On your point about other gameshow articles, while I am certainly not going to click every one, so many of the ones I did click had sections like "murder charge" and "career" and various other sections that implied that this person was notable for reasons other than the gameshow. There are a few that are just about the gameshow, and some of those are being considered for deletion. Benboy00 (talk) 13:39, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I noted before, there is no evidence of any actual cult following. The daily mail is well known for making things up, from entire articles to fake quotes. It is not hard to imagine them making such a thing up. It is also beside the point. The actual evidence of a real fan base stems entirely from very few, very old, news stories. Other sources that could verify such a following, like facebook and twitter, seem to suggest the opposite i.e. that the papers greatly exaggerated any fan base (I also notice they quoted no figures, which they seem to like doing). I feel that this is a persuasive argument, but I would be happy to hear a more persuasive opposing one, either on this comment or the earlier two. Please read those first before commenting though. Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 23:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where did I make anything up? All I ever did is ask for evidence. Where I made any statement, I backed it up with references. You, on the other hand, have simply kept recycling a failed argument. Those quotes also seem to prove me right about the quoting numbers thing :P. As far as I can see, those articles also all point to the same, now non-existent facebook group. I am still looking for evidence of any *actual* cult following. All I ask for is a sign that he has followers. I have looked for evidence, and keep coming up empty. If you can find this one thing, then I will concede the entire argument, but until then I am still of my original opinion. Maybe you can find some current media that mentions him with Highbeam Research. Also, please dont lie by saying I am making anything up. It's quite a serious accusation, one that requires substantial evidence. Please explicitly point out the parts to which you refer? Benboy00 (talk) 13:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:NOTTEMPORARY, "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." Multiple sources have been provided demonstrating this significant coverage. Further sources are not required to satisfy you personally. Warden (talk) 13:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • My entire argument is based on the WP:BLP1E policy. To argue that this policy does not apply, you have to show that his "notability" (which i do not beleive really exists in the first place) is based not just on that one event OR show that he has (or had at one point) significant cult following. Since you have failed (in my opinion) to show the former, and seem to have given up (if I am wrong on this, please correct me), then this argument is now entirely about cult following. My point about the facebook group was NOT that it used to be a cult following, but now its not so its not relevant. My point is that 1. 1600 fans (for a facebook page) should not, I think, count as a cult following, and 2. the fact that it no longer exists implies that there were never enough fans to merit sustained interest. There are currently over 620 million facebook groups [1], and based on this 2009 data [2] (which is around the time that the final happened) the average page had over 4000 likes. This guttenplan page had less than half the average (quite a lot less). Does this really count as a "cult following"? Especially considering that cult following implies some level of dedicated fans (according to wiki), when everyone knows just how easy and trivial it is to like a facebook page. You also havent responded to my request for clarification. Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 14:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • BLP1E is irrelevant because the subject appeared in multiple events in a high profile way. The calculations about cult following are irrelevant because they are OR in support of a personal opinion, contrary to WP:NPOV and WP:V. We have multiple independent reliable sources reporting the cult following and so we're good. Warden (talk) 08:48, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A more relevant point, which you should have mentioned earlier, is that discussed below (about him appearing in an entirely different show). It is because of this that I am changing my opinion to keep. I would also like to ask again for any evidence for your rather serious allegation that I made anything up. Benboy00 (talk) 19:00, 27 August 2013 (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.
  1. ^ http://allfacebook.com/google-now-indexes-620-million-facebook-groups_b10520
  2. ^ http://www.sysomos.com/insidefacebook/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alexander_Guttenplan_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1137552260"