Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshua Lee Young

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. bd2412 T 21:03, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Lee Young

[edit]
Joshua Lee Young (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)

Contested PROD. The subject is one of those "up and coming, next big thing" types that the entertainment world is full of. There are plenty of citations here, but they're to IMDB and other sources simply confirming that he exists, as well as all manner of social media sites doing much the same. Based on a Google search, I'm thinking we have a WP:NEXTBIGTHING who isn't yet. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:42, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:30, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:30, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:31, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources to meet WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO, or WP:ENT.  gongshow  talk  00:41, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've stubbed the article by removing most of the unsourced/poorly sourced information. I suspect that the content of the IMDB page once verified more information but has been subsequently trimmed. Regardless, IMDB is not reliable. --Ronz (talk) 16:09, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep After performing Google search on the subject, I found that the subject has a Verified page and badge on Facebook, which means Facebook confirms that it was an authentic page for the subject as a "public figure." Also, from a quick cross check of the other major social media platforms, subject also has a Verified page and badge on Kiwi and Spotify, which means both Kiwi and Spotify confirm this subject is a Public Figure. My point is not the subject's social media, but the verifiability and reliability of Facebook, Spotify, and Kiwi all being major platforms that are independent of the subject. MoviesAndMusic (talk) 09:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)MoviesAndMusic— MoviesAndMusic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
That doesn't make any sense. Either his Facebook (to take one example) is run by him/his "people", in which case it's not independent of him, or it's run by someone entirely else in which case it wouldn't make sense to have him as being "verified" on it. Social media isn't usually a reliable source, come to think of it. Even if that contradiction could be cleared up, I don't see how Facebook or Spotify at least would be able to provide the third-party in depth coverage required. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:58, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for the confusion. I am Not referring to His Facebook page, His Spotify page, or His Kiwi page as independent sources. I am referring to the companies themselves being independent from the subject. Facebook, Spotify, and Kiwi are all major companies with high-end verification processes before issuing a verified badge to the page. These badges require a set of criteria and are only issued to the most notable figures. If all 3 of these companies are confirming he is a public figure in entertainment with a verified badge, then that serves as a reliable case that this person is legitimately notable. The case I was making had nothing to do with "in depth" coverage, so I apologize if I misled you into thinking it was. I have not looked into the "in depth" coverage, but if you already looked deeply into it, then maybe this page will qualify for WP:ENT criteria part 2. Can someone do us a solid and look into whether or not he has a large fan base or significant following? Thanks! MoviesAndMusic (talk) 12:57, 8 August 2017 (UTC)MoviesAndMusic[reply]
That misses the point I was making, though. If the pages are independent of the person they're about, then (logically) they can't be "verified" as being the page of the person they're about, can they? So if they are "verified" per Facebook's checking processes, then they are by definition not independent of the subject. Moreover, "having a verified badge" doesn't count for notability in a Wikipedia sense, which always requires in-depth coverage. If you weren't making a point about in-depth coverage, might I suggest that you make one in order to demonstrate notability for the subject? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:19, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In reference to the comment about IMDb not being reliable, I did some deeper digging to verify further. The subject is credited through many movie's distributors such as Amazon. Also credited through official production's websites[1], and other independent sources. I am on the 17th page of Google search about the subject, and there are still independent sources referencing the subject in the movies and shows. In addition to those findings, both the subject and subject's name appears in many of the posters and screen grabs, for both movies and shows[2]. In addition, he's billed on IMDb as the main actor for many of these are movies and shows on major networks like Investigation Discovery with notable names like Bex Taylor-Klaus, Madison Iseman, and many others[3]. That meets WP:ENT criteria 1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. WikiDuud (talk) 09:29, 8 August 2017 (UTC)WikiDuud — WikiDuud (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.ridesharemovie.co/cast/
  2. ^ http://www.imdb.com/name/nm5680642/?ref_=nv_sr_2
  3. ^ http://www.imdb.com/name/nm5680642/?ref_=nv_sr_2
Considering that Amazon is happy to distribute practically anything, I'm not sure that amounts to much. Additionally, the simple fact that his name appears in a mention of a film or what-have-you doesn't mean anything - it's not just an exercise in "find the name on the internet", but rather "find the independent, reliable, in depth coverage". A poster or screen grab isn't any of those. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:58, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this is not an exercise in "find the name on the internet." However, I do not think the case being made here was about "in depth" coverage either. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I think what this user means is that Amazon, IMDb, Movie and TV Posters, Screen grabs of scenes, the actual movie and show websites, various articles, and other sources are all independent to the subject, but they are all saying the same thing and serving as evidence that this subject has a significant, if not main role in these projects that involve other notable celebrities and networks.MoviesAndMusic (talk) 13:13, 8 August 2017 (UTC)MoviesAndMusic[reply]
On the contrary. The "case being made" is always about in depth coverage. See the general notability guideline, which is at the root of any discussion about the notability or lack thereof of any subject of any article. To address the types of sources listed: screen grabs of scenes, along with posters for films and shows, simply prove that the person played a role in the given thing, they aren't "coverage" in any sense of the word. Broadly speaking, the same applies for the websites for the films and shows, as they're designed to promote the thing they're about (and, by extension, the people involved). IMDB is user-editable and thus less than reliable, and Amazon is largely happy to distribute anything and sell anything, so again it confirms existence but not coverage. The "various articles" sounds the most promising, but they still need to amount to an in depth level of coverage, which the ones presently in the article do not. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:11, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not much found for him other than social media sites and a few passing references. Fails WP:ENT and WP:BIO. It's a concern that several SPAs have shown up on this SPI or on the article (including one who identifies as the actor's publicity agent). Meters (talk) 20:22, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- a directory listing on an unremarkable subject. Insufficient independent sourcing & does not meet WP:ENT. The "Keep" votes are from SPAs apparently affiliated with the subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:58, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 00:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bearian, I have an IMDB page for being part of the production crew of 3 videos. I'm about as far from notable as you can get. That is how unimportant IMDB is for proving notability. ShelbyMarion (talk) 01:10, 17 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Joshua_Lee_Young&oldid=1137958724"