Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B. Scott

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. Keeper | 76 19:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B. Scott

[edit]
B. Scott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

I speedied this article twice for A7, non-notability. The author created a new article, with some claims to notability. I'm not sure they are enough to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia though. I get the impression that this is just another blogger about showbizz and celebrities, nothing that sets him apart from others doing this. AecisBrievenbus 21:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • DO NOT DELETE If you all actually take the time out to watch his vids and visit his site, then you would realize that his take on celebrities are not cruel or hateful. He always has something positive to say regarding the crazy situations that these stars go through. He does not bash or wish any harm to them. He is truly a great human being, and the industry needs more people like him. He has been featured on/in sites/magazines such as Wireimage, Bqemagazine, Clik magazine, and the Jamaican Observer. He will host three events for Washington, DC’s Gay Black pride (which he will host again this Summer) and has also hosted the HBFF (Hollywood Black Film Festival). DO NOT DELETE!!!!

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tlt02k (talk • contribs) 22:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC) — Tlt02k (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --12 Noon 2¢ 22:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Objection to Deletion. As contributor to this article, I have thoroughly re-read notability and reliable sources. Subject is the only openly gay, multi-racial commentator covering all aspects of media regardless of race, gender, orientation, or class. Moreover, similar articles in nature (see: Perez Hilton; Chris Crocker) are written in the same tone and still stand undeleted. Diverse representation of subjects within this area of Wikipedia is necessary and demanded. Subject expands beyond blogging and is clearly an actor, activist and host. All dead links have been fixed, and excluding blogs, youtube and self-sourced material there are now 6 reliable sources backing relevancy of subject ranging from published work to proof of occupation and notability. Just being 'positive' is a unique characteristic but has not been cited by author as proof of validity for article. Accounting4Taste is stating a subjective opinion as grounds for deletion. Such claims are not valid. Subjects' full body of work including all events hosted have been referenced properly, rather than claims of a few 'selected' events to be covered and referenced that are insinuated. Lastly, there are 6 working, relevant references to help establish subject's notability which under Wikipedia guidelines (which does not state any numerical standards) should be enough. lrprice (talk) 23 January 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 23:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I was sufficiently stung by the above suggestion that I went back and tried to look at the article from scratch, identifying the claims for notability and holding them up against the relevant policy statements. I still don't see a reason to change my !vote for deletion, although I admit there is more there than I saw by only tracing a representative sample of the links. This individual may have notability when his career approaches the level of Perez Hilton, whom I believe has achieved notability by being the subject of references/quotes/allusions in other media; right now, it's self-publication -- at a very high level of self-publication, but self-publication nevertheless -- and my understanding of self–publication in any medium is that it does not confer notability. If someone has policy to cite, I'd be pleased to hear it; I think this might be a case where policy doesn't entirely cover the situation, because this type of potential notability is so new and unusual, but I just cannot see how true notablity attaches to this type of self-promotional activity. I'm also concerned that Wikipedia might be being used as an advertising vehicle in this type of situation. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(I'm restoring this comment, which was added when the material above was blanked) DO NOT DELETE B.SCOTT'S PAGE!! HE ROCKS!! :o) Accounting4Taste:talk 23:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • DO NOT DELETE. Read entry by lrprice regarding issues of notability (see: Perez Hilton; Chris Crocker) Ytfamilia:talk 00:39, 24 January 2008 (GMT)
  • Delete I've really tried to believe that he's notable, but google searches for "B. Scott" turn up other people (like actor Larry B. Scott (Lamar from Revenge of the Nerds); searches of the name Sessoms don't turn up much; there's a few references to "B. Scott" in a news search, but nothing indicating that he's considered important. He may be the next Rona Barrett; he just isn't there yet. Mandsford (talk) 01:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- *DO NOT DELETE. This is an interesting circular discussion that seems to almost have less to do with whether or not B. Scott is notable, and more to do with acceptability of the mediums that make him notable. For those of us who follow B. Scott's broadcasts and blog (and there are THOUSANDS of us), there is no question that he is notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. While it is true that blogs and video-sharing sites (like YouTube) allow anyone to have a public face and are relatively new mediums that are not yet considered mainstream sources, this is quickly becoming a fallacy. Of course, as one of the above objectors pointed out, Perez Hilton is perhaps the most well-known blogger. While I cannot disagree that blogging and video-sharing are TECHNICALLY "self-publishing," I WILL argue that to ignore THOUSANDS (not hundreds) of readers and viewers because the mainstream media has not discovered something is very erroneous logic. Anyone can put up a video and proclaim themselves "notable," but not everyone can garner 50,000 PLUS viewers on a single video (as has B. Scott). Not all YouTubers are accepted as "YouTube Partners," which basically means that said partner has "enough" regular viewers (YouTube specifies "thousands") that the corporate arm of YouTube can sell ad space on said poster's videos (as is the case with B. Scott, a YouTube partner). Additionally, not all "self-publishing" people can claim to be featured in ANY magazine. B. Scott is slated to be featured in the February 2008 issue of "Clik Magazine" (http://www.clikmagazine.com/img/24.jpg for a preview of the issue). B. Scott has also been quoted by other notable blog sites like Concreteloop, which has well over 1 million readers DAILY; has been featured on B.E.T.; and has garnered such coveted celebrity interviews as Kanye West, Rihanna and Ne-Yo just to name a few (http://concreteloop.com/2007/12/video-b-scott-on-the-chris-stokes-scandal). In addition to his printed and video blogs, he also interviewed celebs on the Red Carpet at the 2007 ASCAP Rhythm & Soul Award Show in L.A. (For video of red carpet interviews: http://lovebscott.com/wordpress/?s=ASCAP) B. Scott is a phenomenon who might be unknown to some of the objectors here, but he has definitely become a notable personality to THOUSANDS of subscribers who voluntarily tune-in every day. I hope Wikipedia will reconsider deletion of this individual because I think at BEST this is a borderline case, but at worse, this is an outright mistake because of a lack of recognition of this individual's medium. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennsifan (talk • contribs) 01:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE —Preceding unsigned comment added by TinnyLOVE (talk • contribs) 03:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC) :*— TinnyLOVE (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Comment If 50,000 people slow down to look at a car accident, it's still a car accident and not notable; YouTube statistics don't confer notability because the people who make up those statistics are not experts in anything except their own amusement. "Lots of people know about X" is not a valid argument here for the notability of X; fame, yes, but notability, no. Being quoted by other "notable blog sites" doesn't confer notability -- that's a circular argument that is known as "drinking your own bathwater", and in the PR trade as "logrolling". Of course bloggers talk about other bloggers; if you drive traffic to them, they drive it back to you, and a mutual backscratch is had by all, enabling you to sell more advertising. Getting "coveted celebrity interviews" doesn't confer any notability because the interviewer is just facilitating the subject's self-publishing (being a cog in Rihanna's PR machine/media strategy is less than impressive). The one thing that you've mentioned that would confer notability -- a little bit of it -- is being featured in "Clik Magazine"; IF AND ONLY IF "Clik Magazine" is a reputable source of expert opinion. Since I've never read more than a few pages of it, I can't say with any degree of accuracy whether they can be trusted to tell anyone about anything. Since they apparently don't know how to spell the word "click", I tend to doubt it, but I'm willing to be convinced. What I'm not willing to do is accept that a

mention in an obscure magazine is sufficient notability for someone to be the subject of a Wikipedia article. I've seen Perez Hilton on reputable news programs; he really is notable. I have nothing against the notability of a blogger in and of itself. What I object to is the notability of THIS blogger, because it hasn't been demonstrated in appropriate terms for Wikipedia. When Mr. Scott is quoted as a source by CBS news, then I'll write the darn article for him myself; in the meantime, I suggest he'll have to go without. Accounting4Taste:talk 03:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete: There is a place for famous you-tuers why cant he be on here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.226.4.203 (talk • contribs)

Do Not Delete: B.Scott is making revolutionary moves within the entertainment industry by using YouTube as a mechanism to change the life of his fans by sharing his own experiences and advice. He is a noted entertainment host and has been featured for entertainment contributions in national publications (See, Clik magazine this month) for a recent view. As a gay entertainer, B.Scott is not only notable but he is necessary. Just because he has not been relevant for you, does not mean his is not relevant to the world. Check your sources. Blaackstarr (talk) 05:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blaackstarr (talk • contribs) — Blaackstarr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • DO NOT DELETE- B. Scott is notable! There are many other bloggers featured here on wikipedia that are less known than him, so why are people trying to delete him? B. Scott runs a very successful entertainment website, and his videos on youtube get viewed by thousands of people daily. B. Scott has done lots of things in the entertainment industry, interviews, red carpet events, etc...B. Scott is becoming more popular by the day, and there are people that would like to know more about him, and wikipedia should allow him to stay on this site! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolbeans1981 (talk • contribs) 06:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC) :*— Coolbeans1981 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 09:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE -HES A VERY GREAT GUY! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.205.207 (talk) 09:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which has nothing to do with whether he deserves an article. Please present an actual argument. Did this guy ask his fans to post here? What's up with all these editors who have very little (if any) edits outside of this AFD? I guess they don't know admins will usually ignore their comments. TJ Spyke 11:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Might be notable but badly needs something that establishes the fact. (As a side note, I've missed the Good Old-Fashioned "do not delete" fests. We used to have a lot of these. What happened to them, anyway? Oh yeah, CSD A7 Web happened, that's what - and as it stands, the article is just barely above that criterion.) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • DO NOT DELETE - B. Scott is entertaining, thoughtful, funny, and on his way to great things. he appeals to all walks of life, well spoken and i would liek to follow his work. he deserves this recognition please do not deny him his moment. -------lana313 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdotty313 (talk • contribs) 09:24, January 24, 2008— Sdotty313 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Otherwise yes, but regrettably those attributes aren't enough to make an article - a shame, really, because I like funny things. Not everything funny needs an article in an encyclopaedia, though. We have to evaluate this as every other biography or a web site, and those can be only evaluated through verifiable facts, not subjective qualities like funniness and entertainment factor. In other words, we need proofs of popularity and recognition. A few online mentions and one upcoming print article doesn't sound terribly convincing yet. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Youtube overall statistics are validation for 'popularity and 'recognition'. Statistics extend beyond individual written 'opinions' of who is "notable" and who isn't based on flawed logic that doesn't significantly match the guidelines for Wikipedia's notes on notability. The subject is among the top 100 most viewed youtubers which should denote some type of notability at least as one aspect of the article and is not the only main claim in the article. The numbers express that there is significant interest in the person. The comment stated that "YouTube statistics don't confer notability because the people who make up those statistics are not experts in anything except their own amusement" is like erroneously saying that census statistics don't mean anything when they are taken because the people being counted are only experts in their own mere existence. Such claims and comparisons would be illogical and unintelligent. In addition, there could easily be an inherent bias in wikipedia article challenging as scene above in comment by wwwwolf that states 'I miss the good old-fashioned 'do not delete fests' , given that those who take the time to participate in these discussions will tend to have a set of interests and backgrounds that may differ greatly from a large subset of actual wikipedia users. In addition, such participants may just be looking to 'challenge' a set of wikipedia entries just for the sake of a 'challenge' and not based on any other significant principle. Clik magazine is the largest Black Gay & Lesbian Monthly publication in the United States that has over 100,000 readers, and is the most innovative publication to serve the Black GLBT community for over 10 years. CLIK offers a new, exciting approach to delivering timely community and national news, arts and entertainment, and more than twenty other feature departments. The creative choice of the name 'Clik' should not be misconstrued for illiteracy or lack of intelligence as is suggested above by Accounting4Taste. All claims by this user have had an acutely biased tone. Such claims, as were made by the user. could potentially be viewed as personal attack, condescendingly or covertly homophobic and simply uninformed. These types of 'subjective' personal issues are not basis for deletion of an article. lrprice (talk) 25 January 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 00:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since I'm a gay man who has devoted more than 35 years of his life to fighting homophobia, and a founding member of two national-level organizations in that area, to have it suggested that I'm homophobic means that this discussion will now have to take place without my further contribution, since it has descended from the acrimonious to something which I have no words to describe. I'll save my breath for where it will do some good; I'm removing this discussion from my watchlist. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment to above Please view Wikipedia:Reliable source examples, especially the section entitled Use of statistical data, which pertains to your argument above. Yngvarr 00:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let me clarify what I meant with "old-fashioned do-not-delete fests". This is one of them. In the past, it was relatively common that an article about a blog/web community/etc be nominated for deletion, the regulars at the site came here and all screamed "do not delete" (which, incidentally, makes it easier to identify such users, because AfD instructions specifically tell people to use "Delete"/"Keep"/"Merge"/etc). These haven't been seen lately because nowadays, non-notable websites can be deleted without discussion; the nominator states above that the article has already been speedy-deleted twice. These discussions were fascinating not because we got to see masses of obviously bewildered newbies; they were fascinating because we gave the fans of the site benefit of doubt. We've tried in this discussion refer to the very much applicable policies (notability demonstrated through verifiable facts coming from reliable sources).
      Your theory that AfD regulars are different from everyday users is valid to an extent. However, AfD discussions are based on Wikipedia's policies, which in turn are based on the prevailing consensus (and some are based on facts that are ultimately beyond our control, such as copyright law). Consensus means, basically, "everyone we asked about this thought this was a good idea, and no one had better ideas". It doesn't mean "We asked everyone we could, but no one dared to do anything because it might have annoyed someone we didn't ask" or "we didn't dare to do anything because one user said doing that would annoy them". Our policies have been formed through editor input; they get changed when someone says "this old method demonstrably doesn't work, I have a better idea", and when enough people have given their feedback, we have a good idea if something has to change and how.
      In this case, the consensus is this: We get tons of new articles about biographies and web sites. We can't keep them just because we're nice to these people or communities. We've got to set the bar somewhere or everyone gets lost among the chaff. We can't please everyone by guaranteeing they get an article, but we can guarantee majority of readers that they don't need to wade through a swamp of completely forgettable biographies about the six billion Average Persons - in short, they come to the Encyclopaedia to read about People That Matter, so they should probably easily find what they're looking for: some people who are demonstrably Up There, not some people who merely wish they were Up There.
      Finally, I agree that this particular comment about the publication was uncalled for. Scepticism about sources is a good thing, but random mocking of publication based on name isn't productive. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) (an editor with a particularly dumb user name, and even dumber real name =) 00:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment Material,Wikipedia:Reliable source examples, was read and has been re-read at suggestion. The only new interpretation I gain from the reliable source notations is that statistics have a high possibility of being misinterpreted. Regardless of YouTube Statistics and in addition to the upcoming 'Clik' article, subject has been cited by Wire Image, the largest entertainment authority in celebrity news and imagery since 2001, as a working 'celebrity commentator'. They also provide proof of his hosting background and material with specific visual imagery at various work sites. The Jamaican Observer, a legitimately recognized international source of news, business and entertainment articles, also serves as valid reference for subjects notability and international relevance. They have written about the subject stating relevance, popularity and the medium of his work. The Daily Tar Heel, running since 1893, and with a successful web version published since 1994, has national and international readership that exceeds 700,000 page views a month. They have provided a full two-page write-up of the subject as a certified internet celebrity. All of these claims have been produced by working journalists and authors, exist in print, and are clearly referenced in the article. Wikipedia guidelines state a need for reliable sources on any subject. However, no numerical quota for amount of sources is identified. Please re-read all sources before making any other nominations for deletion or commentary.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lrprice (talk • contribs)
  • Thank you, TakiyahJ, for your attempt at astroturfing. Too bad that AfD is not a vote, but a discussion. It doesn't matter how many people "vote" DO NOT DELETE, if that's all they have to say, their comments may be disregarded. AecisBrievenbus 11:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest that the article in question be semi-PP'ed until the outcome. The edit history should bear out my reasoning... Yngvarr 12:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Elaborate, please? There doesn't seem to be any indication of repeated vandalism or editwarring that would justify semi-protection, in my opinion... but I didn't look that closely. Some people keep adding !votes to the article page instead of AfD proper, but that's not exactly a problem that justifies semi-protection. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if notability means anything it means that people have noticed something and written about it in such a way that we can tell reliably that they have. That's been shown. Sure, it's by sources which aren't on our list, as which might not be reliable enough to document negative BLP concerns, but just as writing a best seller is notable regardless of the contents or merit or true value of the book, just like having a platinum record is notable regardless of its merits, evidence of very high viewing on youtube or of a blog is notable. I know it says notability is not popularity, but it many cases it is indeed popularity, such as those i've mentioned. If the most watch movies produced in Hollywood are notable, so are the most watched ones on youtube and the most watch blogs. Businesses are notable because of the market share, professors for writing widely used textbooks, politicians for attracting the most voters. There are cases, like athletics, where there is a competitive standard, but actually they are unusual. In a great many cases, we do consider popularity to be notability. If we pretend otherwise, lets give up the pretense. N is not policy, but a guideline, and intended to be flexible. The question of whether he is high enough in the rankings is a question beyond my ability to evaluate. the question of what sources are reliable for showing it, is also a reasonable one--I see no reason they should be anything like the conventional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
    • This list? Those are just examples, and is not comprehensive. Reliability (of a source) is highly subjective, because it goes to whether or not the source can be trusted for accuracy. And how is that verified? WP:VER says nothing about that, except that the source needs a "reputation for fact checking and accuracy". The Transhumanist (talk) 21:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Lrprice has proved the subject's notability above. The references he cited are reliable sources, and they establish notability. The Transhumanist 21:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom, another YouTube loser who needs to get a real job. --Merovingian (T, C) 21:21, 29 January 2008 (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/B._Scott&oldid=1254606272"