Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carl Benjamin

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 no consensus. Bordering on "keep", but the outcome is the same: the article is kept, at least for now. Opinions are divided about whether the coverage is sufficient for an article, and this is something editors can in good faith disagree about.  Sandstein  11:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Benjamin[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Carl Benjamin (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)

Previously deleted in 2016. Its sources are all passing mentions of Benjamin's online role as an Internet troll and minor role in Gamergate. Only source with some semblance of depth is this article in The Sunday Times, which covers a "trolling campaign" of his. At best, this is BLP1E, and at worst, this is a minor figure with no significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) (By the way, the easiest way to tell that Heat Street is unreliable is to find this page when looking for its editorial credentials. Reliability is about editorial pedigree and reputation for fact-checking.) czar 01:40, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I linked the absence of an editorial policy, the absence of a reputation for reliability and fact-checking, and I only mentioned it as acknowledgement of the biography's talk page discussion. If you want to discuss further, the best venue for your question is Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, where, for instance, a current thread addresses Heat Street by name. czar 08:30, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It isn't common practice for online-only publications to list their editorial policy on the mast head. Not publishing an editorial policy is not the same as not having one. Still don't get how this is relevant. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 09:27, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mark Schierbecker It is mainly relevant because if Heat Street had a written editorial policy, it would likely be considered a reliable source (rather than a marginal one). If Heat Street could be considered a reliable source in this article then the notability of this subject wouldn't be in question.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  19:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Benjamin meets Wikipedia's notability policy for entertainers by a good margin. His videos have 136 million views (plus another 12 million on this channel). The sources don't just show popularity, but that Sargon is a global political force. A Los Angeles Times reporter calls him a "provocative cultural commentator." BuzzFeed calls Benjamin and Paul Joseph Watson "prolific political-correctness watchdogs." Heat Street calls him a "resoundingly popular anti-PC YouTuber". Another source not mentioned in the article, and also surely not a passing mention: Sargon on The Rubin Report. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 02:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • It says on your user page that you're a reporter for Heat Street. Isn't that a conflict issue if you're using sources of a publication you're part of for an article you made? GamerPro64 04:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I acknowledged my affiliation above. No, it really isn't a conflict to vouch for the verifiability of your own outlet. You can even cite yourself "within reason" per Wikipedia policy. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 05:17, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you are looking for conflicts you may want to focus on my interview with Sargon last year. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 05:23, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • Didn't notice the disclosure at the top. Also, looking through Google News there is an article about Sargon's game from Siliconera that can be useful. Also saw a piece about him on Gizmodo recently but am not sure its appropriate for the article. GamerPro64 05:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non-notable person. Youtube views & videos are not sufficient for establishing notability if he has not achieved consistent, significant coverage in independent reliable sources, and I don't see much having changed with the article from when it was first deleted. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Even if we use the most rigid definition of WP:RS, then this person is covered by TeleSUR,[1] the Los Angeles Times and the Sunday Times. I've seen worse coverage in failed AfDs. Maybe we should reinsert the TeleSUR-part to show that mr. Benjamin/Akkad got significant non-trivial coverage.Jeff5102 (talk) 09:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Being mentioned by name once in an article, especially for the same event, is not significant coverage. Don't see how you can write a biography with solely passing mentions, the LA Times opinion piece, and the Sunday Times mentioned in the nom czar 16:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would say the coverage is sufficient to make an article of it. But that is my opinion. I wonder what the administrators think of it.Jeff5102 (talk) 21:54, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are plenty of sources here to demonstrate notability. It might be marginal but its there; how about this article in Vice that has some significant coverage [1]? 2016 might have been too soon, but it doesn't seem like it is too soon any more.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  10:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Linked that specific article in the nom as a passing mention czar 16:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd consider it more than a passing mention IMO. The article isn't just about him, true, but mentions him 6 times in total and of those discussed in the article, he gets the most coverage. Again, as I said, it is marginal, but it is there.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  18:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, I don't see the point in deleting articles like these (marginally notable bios where a fanbase really, really, wants an article). If we don't have an article there will be constant creations of poor quality submissions that will either end up at AfD or if the page is create-protected will end up wasting loads of time over at AfC. Also you can end up in a situation like over at Paul Joseph Watson where the page was deleted numerous times, create protected, and then even after the subject did get significant coverage, the article languished as a draft because of creation protection. Better to have a short stub on the topic that is decently written and can be improved.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  19:16, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The WP policy is to delete articles on topics that haven't received significant coverage. All fans can do in that model is lobby for more coverage. This is an encyclopedia, not a catalog of sensational headlines. czar 01:29, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I said 'marginally notable' not non-notable. To be clear I believe there is significant coverage here, but it is not overwhelmingly obvious.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  03:04, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- coverage are passing mentions or otherwise not suitable for meeting SIGCOV. Wikipedia is not a collection of fan pages. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:22, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment; What about these episodes on The Rubin Report where Carl has been interviewed at depth multiple times by Dave Rubin? episode 21 and episode 58. These seem to easily satisfy the reliability criteria on their own as in-depth coverage of the topic.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  19:30, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note I have added these sources to the article.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  20:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews are not independent of the subject, and are not sufficient for establishing notability, per WP:BASIC. Grayfell (talk) 03:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's actually a fair point.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  04:24, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Quite a well known person: [2](Gizmodo) [3] (Huffington Post) [4] (Breitbart). These sources havn't been mentioned yet, and all mention the subject in decent detail. I think he passes WP:GNG. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 17:48, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Unlike fellow Youtuber Paul Joseph Watson, who has received significant coverage for the Sweden/Tim Pool offer, Sargon doesn't seem to be notable yet, even though he has a dedicated fanbase that is growing. But fanbase or number of followers don't establish notability, and most of the coverage in RS are indeed passing mentions, with only some blog entries discussing him in more detail. And per Grayfell, an interview in The Rubin Report doesn't establish notability. κατάσταση 18:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at [[5]} this source from the huffington post AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 07:41, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at [[6]} this source from the huffington post AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 07:41, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Already used as a source with "The Good Men Project". GamerPro64 05:39, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Politically charged or contentious AfDs are just like that, they tend to pull a bunch of people out of the woodwork (both for and against). The argument for deletion of this article really depends on how you define 'passing mentions' (is an article that is 1/3 about the subject a 'passing mention'?--IMO it is not). To say that this subject is not notable also requires completely dismissing Heat Street coverage.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  18:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment about 'Heat Street'. People who are voting delete seem to be dismissing Heat Street as an unreliable source, despite a body of evidence that indicates that Heat Street issues retractions [7] (issuing retractions is a sign of a reliable source). 2: that they are taken seriously as a journalistic source by the white house and other news outlets: [8], [9], [10], [11]. as well as being taken seriously as a journalistic source by Factcheck.org [12].
Heatstreet alone has enough coverage of Benjamin to easily establish GNG [13], [14]. and there seems to be a body of evidence to establish that Heatstreet has a reputation as a reliable source among other reliable sources.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  18:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sargon of Akkad has been covered by sources other than Heat Street such as The Los Angeles Times and Daily Dot (which are already included in the article). Sargon also had a passing mention in Crave Online where he interviewed wth Jontron. Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 04:26, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I honestly don't believe there's any real reason to delete the article. Even if the articles are in passing of Sargon, there's still information about him that can be used. Granted it'll end up as a weak article but still shows notability about the YouTuber. GamerPro64 05:39, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is enough coverage of the subject that is between passing mentions and substantial coverage, including ones that put him as one of the most prominent members of the right-wing Youtuber movement, that WP:BASIC is met. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:36, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - He gets enough views on his youtube videos to merit a celebrated status. netcowboy 04:26, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note that netcowboy has made very few edits and this is his first edit since 2008.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  07:41, 18 March 2017 (UTC) [reply]
  • Keep - He is a notable and influential youtuber who has been referenced by multiple media sources and politicians.Andres rojas22 (talk) 17:30, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Andres rojas22: Sorry- which politicians have referenced him? PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Jess Phillips (politician)Andres rojas22 (talk) 13:00, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Andres rojas22: When and where? Would you be able to provide proof? Which additional politician(s) do you suppose referenced him (given that you used the plural form)? PeterTheFourth (talk) 19:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that this is what Andres rojas22 is referring to. however, Jess Philips does not mention him by name in the article, but does refer to his actions, and the tweets she received from others as a result of his comment "I wouldn't even rape you." This particular article by Phillips doesn't contribute to Benjamin's notability (though the coverage of the same incident in the Sunday Times does).  InsertCleverPhraseHere  00:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Benjamin himself talked about this article in this video. Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 03:21, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – It is too soon for an article that would cover Benjamin encyclopedically. I am not convinced that the depth of coverage is substantial enough for a BLP, given that it consists almost exclusively of short opinion pieces and trivial mentions. Most of these are already included in the article itself or are discussed above, and I found no other substantial coverage after a thorough search. The opinion pieces (like the articles in the Los Angeles Times, telesur, and the Huffington Post, which is republished at the Good Men Project) comprise the most substantial portion of this article's sourcing, and while they are useful additions to an article in representing the spectrum of opinion, they are rarely reliable for statements of fact. I am extremely skeptical of counting Heat Street as an RS–it does not make any attempt to distinguish its mostly satirical opinion commentary (e.g. "American Values Under Attack: Link Is Transgender for 10 Minutes in New ‘Zelda’ Game", "Why Tracer Being Gay Is Offensive to Otherkin Like Me") from actual journalism. User:Insertcleverphrasehere proposed that it is taken seriously as a journalistic source by several outlets, but this seems to be largely a misrepresentation of their positions: the articles all indicate the media "takes Heat Street seriously" in the sense that they were important to the administration's wiretapping story, but they do not characterize its work as serious journalism; even the most avid followers of Mensch's reporting described in the articles, like Spayd, couch their praise with "I have no idea whether it's true or not". This indicates, if anything, a poor reputation; as mentioned by Czar before, the lack of a written editorial policy only furthers this. Other available sourcing is far too trivial (see one-sentence mention in Salon, the one-sentence scattered, brief, mentions on Buzzfeed News, a few short sentences in The Daily Dot, a tangential mention in VICE which devotes a short paragraph to the Jess Phillips incident and little more, etc.) The most substantial piece of journalism, this Times article, is much better contextualized in the Jess Phillips article. —0xF8E8 (talk) 04:57, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 05:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have inserted this from Inside Higher Ed, which is not enough for a Wikipedia-article in itself, but combined with all other references, I think it contributes to establish the notability of mr. Benjamin.Jeff5102 (talk) 09:21, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, the inaccuracies he described were minor (and have been fixed), and he concluded by saying that the article was a fair representation of him, including both criticism and counterpoints. InsertCleverPhraseHere 20:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the inaccuracies mentioned by Benjamin were: a) year of birth and b) the year Sargon became active on Youtube. Both have been fixed. For the rest, mr. Benjamin said, in the description of his video: “And...it's not bad. Way better than the GamerGate one,” and in the vid itself: “There is nothing I object to,(4:49)” I fail to grasp how this could be “an indication that the sourcing does not exist to do justice to the topic.”Jeff5102 (talk) 08:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Clearly notable per N, being a known public figure with millions of views and news mentions. Although I can already see the wave after wave of inevitable edit-warring... -- Director (talk) 15:43, 23 March 2017 (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. ^ Gentlemen, It's Time We Had a Serious Talk; by Rich Penney; 1 June 2016;Telesur
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Carl_Benjamin&oldid=1136734455"