Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phil Davison (2nd nomination)

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 Redirect to List of YouTube personalities. Ruslik_Zero 20:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Davison[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As a biography, the subject fails the guideline WP:POLITICIAN, but there is a suggestion that this subject has received adequate persistent coverage to no longer qualify as a WP:BLP1E. Starting a second AfD to obtain broader discussion. VQuakr (talk) 21:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The 1st deleted article had a tons of sources cited, I don't know if that history can be restored for the AfD.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 21:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Phil Davison is currently the focus of eight recent news articles. This proves that coverage of him is persistent and he has become a subject of pop culture. Additionally, he is not known for just one event: he is a city official, has been the subject of numerous public interviews and has gained mention in three sources as a potential presidential candidate, which qualifies him to be listed at United States presidential election, 2012. I request that the previous version of the article be restored to which updates can be added.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

William, I can't tell if you are being serious. I mean, I love Phil and would actually love it if he had an article, but jokes about him running for president are still jokes.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 23:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If Alvin Greene can run for president, so can Phil Davison.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also a joke. Reywas92^Talk 03:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G4 We just had this AfD less than a month ago! He was non-notable and a flash in the pan then, mostly a joke in the context of the election cycle, and his notability remains no more than that. Ray^Talk 15:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

False. Coverage is persistent. Speculation is real.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. We did have this AfD less than a month ago. There was consensus to delete. Casual offhand mentions of an amusing anecdote do not constitute significant and persistent coverage surpassing WP:BLP1E, and they certainly do not constitute reasons to overturn previous consensus in less than a month. Ray^Talk 17:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I listed above, there are 8 recent news stories about Phil Davison thus proving that his notability is persistent. Phil Davison was slightly notable before his speech because of his status in Minerva and Stark County. The speech, national interviews, news reports and presidential speculation have pushed him beyond the threshold of wikipedia notability.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Please be more specific when you say "false." It seems you are making an argument that the original AfD was wrongly decided, not disputing that it happened - and contesting a more offhand observation on my part which was shared by the commentators at the previous AfD. WP:DRV is that way. Ray^Talk 17:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore all rules. I didn't recreate the page or open this AFD, but it's been recreated and this AFD is open. We should understand and note that coverage is persistent and restore the article and add all the necessary updates.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is becoming troll-like, William. I think Phil is awesome and I improved his article significantly before deletion with the intention of reposting it on my blog (which I haven't done yet). The subsequent stuff you reference is just tail-end coverage of the original story.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 18:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be troll-like to delete the article simply because people think he's some kind of joke. Even if he is a joke, he's a notable joke like Antoine Dodson.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because he's the definition of WP:BLP1E --Muboshgu (talk) 19:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain. Keep in mind that I am using the statement "The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources" to support my argument. --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Explain? He was involved in one event and has no notability outside of that one event. To quote BLP1E, "Merely being in the news does not imply someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. 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 an article on them." What news coverage has there been of him outside of this one viral video? --Muboshgu (talk) 20:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above, before the video, he received coverage as a candidate for office and councilman in Minerva, since the video he has received coverage as a potential presidential candidate. If you combine this with the impact of the video, it pushes him past the threshold of notability especially since coverage is persistent.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POLITICIAN states that being a candidate for office is not sufficient to guarantee notability. Being a councilman in Minerva is also not enough to establish notability. This video is based on the one event that establishes his BLP1E, and does not establish a "second event". This isn't "persistent coverage", this is his fifteen minutes of fame winding down. --Muboshgu (talk) 22:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you combine the four things he is notable for and has received significant coverage for in reliable sources, the threshold of notability is passed. For clarity, the four things are his position as councilman in Minerva, his candidacies in Stark County, his video and his mentions in the press as a potential presidential candidate.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree. Those four things: (1) not notable, (2) not notable, (3) BLP1E, (4) the extension of his BLP1E. Clearly they don't establish notability on their own, with that I'm sure you agree. As to whether those things together form a notable subject, I say no. You pointed out the "bed intruder" guy earlier in this AfD as a comparable, but that guy spawned a single that charted. This guy is a local politician who had one moment get caught on YouTube and has done nothing since. --Muboshgu (talk) 22:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Each of the four are notable as they have been covered in reliable sources. This is very similar to Alvin Greene who is notable for winning the Democratic primary for Senate in South Carolina, which spawned media interest and a potential presidential candidate. The difference is that Alvin Greene had zero notability before the one event that made him famous. Davison had some from his position in Minerva and Stark County candidacies.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We don't establish notability for local politicians with no national visibility. That would be unmanageable. Alvin Greene isn't BLP1E because his actions are more than just one event. Greene had all those moments that put together establish his notability. This guy had one video clip. --Muboshgu (talk) 23:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What moments? Media interviews? Media reports? Phil Davison received (and still receives) such coverage. The only difference is that Phil Davison is an elected official that had some name recognition in his native county before his breakthrough event.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's the questions about how he raised the filing fee with no income, the obscenity charge, the job creation idea of selling Alvin Greene action figures, being denounced by one of the top members of his party from his state, the charges that Republicans somehow rigged the primary, and that's just from the top of my head. Davison has one viral video. Davison's coverage is based on that one viral video. Therefore, BLP1E. There's not much more I can say about this. --Muboshgu (talk) 23:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. But those all spawned from the one event and are just questions about the man. An obscenity charge doesn't necessarily make one notable. In Davison's case there are many questions as well and notable jokes made in the media. Look up his notable interview on Red Eye; much more is discussed here than just the speech.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability zero. --Data Cube (talk) 19:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

False as proven above.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close this troll debate.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 23:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very important debate about notability.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable local official plus non-notable viral video does not equal notability. Reywas92^Talk 03:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate description. Please see above.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The person fails WP:POLITICIAN and his speech fails WP:EVENT, WP:BLP1E, and likely WP:NOTNEWS. I agree with Moboshgu that the threshold for "persistent coverage" has not been met. Location (talk) 05:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please reread #3 of WP:Politician. The significance of coverage has already been established. You are simply making assertions without evidence.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the "significant coverage" has been established and would contend that you are making assertions without evidence. Location (talk) 14:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is your opinion that I am making assertions without evidence, however, this is not backed by evidence.--William S. Saturn (talk) 14:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The burden of proof is on the one making the assertion. You have asserted that "[t]he significance of coverage has already been established", but have failed to show to us that reports of a candidate's impassioned speech establishes "significant coverage" of the subject. Location (talk) 16:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to recent news stories about Phil Davison proving persistence. Here are some articles from the past and present proving that he is notable for other things, here's some more. 7 other stories found here. Many, many others.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:PERSISTENCE: "a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable". Or, as someone else as stated: "This isn't 'persistent coverage', this is his fifteen minutes of fame winding down." Of the other sources, local news coverage of a local politician fails WP:POLITICIAN, WP:GEOSCOPE, and WP:NOTNEWS. Location (talk) 18:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are failing to recognize the coverage from before the video and the coverage that is currently being published, two months after the video. Being a local politician does not mean someone is automatically non-notable. It adds to their notability if they are notable for something else.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've considered the various news reports and find that they are insufficient to establish notability of the subject or his speech. The person fails WP:POLITICIAN and his speech fails WP:EVENT, WP:BLP1E, and likely WP:NOTNEWS. Location (talk) 19:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why you consider the various reports as insufficient (there was a great quantity so I forgive if you didn't read them all). Also, it is not necessary to continuously link to guideline pages. You've already linked to them previously in this discussion.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The links are the rational. I'll forgive you if you didn't read them all.Location (talk) 20:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just as in articles, overlinking in discussion is not ideal. I know you can link to guideline pages, but that does not prove you understand what you linked to.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Current consensus says otherwise. Cheers!Location (talk) 21:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Luckily, policy is formed by long term consensus rather than flawed short term consensus.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: The issues of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT need to be addressed, and the arguments that follow such reasoning should be discounted. Clearly Phil Davison is notable; 92,000 g-hits proves this. The question of persistence is answered by the fact that there are still recent news stories about Davison, over 2 months after his speech. We must understand that he is notable not just for the speech, but for three other things, which have been listed above. Those that are voting delete have not disputed his notability with evidence, instead they have resorted to the arguments of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, WP:GHITS is an argument to avoid from the same essay. This essentially boils down to a balance between WP:GNG and WP:BLP1E. In my opinion, the BLP1E carries more weight in this instance because it presumes that the subject will receive some coverage in connection with the singular event. Alvin Greene was a poor counter example; he has received much more media coverage over a longer period of time and received more than a quarter of the vote in the general election for national office. VQuakr (talk) 09:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still stay he's not "clearly notable." The number of Google hits doesn't establish notability. He's a BLP1E. --Muboshgu (talk) 14:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I proved above. He is notable for four events. Coverage is persistent since he is still discussed in reliable sources.--William S. Saturn (talk) 14:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've made our points and made them well. To borrow from my favorite TV pundit, you sir are a formidable opponent. Any more debate between us on this would be going around in circles. --Muboshgu (talk) 15:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree.--William S. Saturn (talk) 15:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed compromise solution: How about adding Davison to the List of YouTube personalities, certainly he is deserving of a listing on that page. Then create a redirect linking to that page. If he continues to receive enough publicity in reliable sources to make him clearly worthy of a page, then replace the redirect with article content. If his publicity flickers out, then he at least has some acknowledgement on Wikipedia. Certainly Davison has gained enough notoriety to be deserving of a least a mention and a redirect, has he not?--Rollins83 (talk) 16:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have now added Davison to the List of YouTube personalities page. Replacing the current content on Phil Davison with #REDIRECT List of YouTube personalities#YouTube personalities would be a very simple task.--Rollins83 (talk) 17:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My name is Will Saturn, and I am here to fight Wikipedia's nomination,

for the deletion of Phil Davison, the not-Stark County Treasurer,
in November 10th...November of 2010 excuse me.

In terms of my background, I am from the village of Inclusionista,
where I am serving my 3th year of elected service, as as Anti-Deletionist council member.

In terms of education, I have a bachelors degree in rhetoric,
a bachelors degree in whoopass at AFD, a masters degree in public shaming of opponents,
and a masters degree in communication.

In terms of edits across Wikipedia, I have represented Wikipedia well to the public,
in both AfD and PRODs,
and I will not apologize for my tone tonight.

I have been a Wikipedian in times good, and I have been a Wikipedian in times bad.

Albert Einstein issued one of my most favorite quotes, in the history of the spoken word,
And it is as follows:

In the middle of opportunity...oh...excuse me...
"in the middle of difficulty lies opportunity..."
I'm going to repeat that so I have clarity tonight:
"in the middle of difficulty lies opportunity."

This is the AfD of Opportunity we've been waiting for.

The Ariticles for Deletion process is a mess,
It is in dire need of structure and guidance
And now is the time to seize this opportunity,
With an aggressive campaign, and an even more aggressive campaigner.

I promise each and every person in this room,
I am hitting the ground running,
coming out swinging, and I will end up winning!

Let's send the message tonight, to all the editors of Wikipedia,
and to the public who google "Phil Davison wiki" in vain
We're tired of business as usual.

Drastic times require what?... (milo says: Drastic Measures!!!)
Drastic measures! YES! Who said that??
Thank YOU!
Drastic times require drastic measures!

We will not tolerate incompetence and irresponsibility any longer,
Now is the time to snap the Deletionist Stranglehold on Articles for Deletion process!

And I hearken back to what my friend Milo just said.
He defended William Swanberg and
Debrahlee Lorenzana in the past,
It was a problem then, Its a problem now.

AfD is not touch football,
AfD is winner take all.
It always has been, and it always will be.

If you !vote keep tonight, I want to develop and expand my campaign,
For what I believe is the greatest strength of Wikipedia,
and that is its breadth, depth, and 1000s of articles just about The Simpsons.

I believe in the axiom that all politics (including at AfD) is local (i.e., it depends who shows up).
And because of this belief, I want to harness the thoughts and ideas,
That individuals in our Project have
concerning Wikipedia and its many supposed cabals...
and use that to its fullest extent. Knowledge is power.

Lets tap into this knowledge, and use it as a tool to win for Phil Davison's survival.
Lets use this knowledge not only as a tool, but as a weapon.

We must win this AfD,
If you !vote keep tonight I will win this discussion,
And I'm going to say that again --- so there is no miscommunication tonight,
If you !vote keep tonight I WIN! (or least get a no consensus close!!!)

Tell your Friends, Tell your neighbors,
Tell Randy Gonzalez,
I'm coming, both barrels, guns loaded.

I believe in the principles,
on which Wikipedia was founded,
That this is the Encyclopedia that ANYONE can edit,
And that THIS article is surely more notable than Mzoli's.

And I will not hide those beliefs,
On my march to victory for Phil and Alvin Greene as candidates for US President.
And I can guarantee with 100% certainty, that what you are seeing from me tonight,
Is what everyone on Wikipedia is going to get over the next Steven Slater/Falcon Heene/Cigar guy debate.

I used to be an idealistic figure, I am now a pragmatic figure.
Wikipedia may be about service, but AfD is about winning.

Tonight as an editor, seeking the survival of Phil Davison, not-Stark County Treasurer,
I humbly ask for your keep !vote as editors of the Wikipedia project.
Thank you!

With all due respect to Will.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 15:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have enjoyed this greatly and added it to my userpage.--William S. Saturn (talk) 15:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the outcome, this might be the greatest AfD ever. --Muboshgu (talk) 16:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Rollins. I agree with Muboshgu, this AfD discussion is priceless. Thanks, Milowent, you made my night. But there is still no way this guy should have an article on Wikipedia. Sure I saw the video, we all did. It was memorable, in a scary kind of way. It got some mentions in mainstream media at the time (there are a lot more that could be added to the article, ranging from CBS to PBS to the Huffington Post) and was a big hit on youtube. But his was not an enduring notability, it was a one-week wonder. The "recent articles" being promoted here are not from Reliable Sources. Nobody serious has nominated the guy for president or anything else. He did not get the nomination to minor office that he was seeking. He's simply not a notable individual in spite of his moment in the sun - living proof of Andy Warhol's prediction that "In the future, everyone will be world-famous for 15 minutes." --MelanieN (talk) 05:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with Rollins' compromise as well. --Muboshgu (talk) 05:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree, but would like to see the original page history restored before it is redirected.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would not object to a redirect, or a restoration of the page history. Ray^Talk 05:50, 16 November 2010 (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.