Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rob Lipsett

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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:25, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Lipsett

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Regardless of any possible notability, this is promotionalism. The references are the usual sort of notices and press releases, as expected for people whose career depends on them. we don't have to jhelp them at it. DGG ( talk ) 23:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:01, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:01, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:01, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:01, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - so he's micro-celebrity and this article is just one big advert for him. Spleodrach (talk) 00:42, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does it not make more sense to edit it rather than delete it then? Sone3452 (talk) 09:13, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I note you wrote the article. Are you connected with the subject? In answer to your question, his only claim to fame is he has a large number of followers on various social media; definite delete. Spleodrach (talk) 09:39, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No connection was done rather as part of a university assignment, I rather choose to believe that Wikipedia has a habit of ignoring the importance of the "field" if you will, of the social media micro-celebrities. Whilst I would whole heartedly concede it is ridiculous to include every social media 'micro-celebrity', it would be equally foolish to ignore the more notable ones and in turn ignore the 'field' as a whole, as it's one of the fastest growing, influential, fields of study in todays social media dominated world.Sone3452 (talk) 01:48, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No apparent notability; clearly promotional and would take a heck of a lot of work to make it otherwise.Deb (talk) 09:27, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would refer you to bellow where I discussed the notion of the notability of the larger micro-celebrity and question how someone with a growing reach of almost a million people has less notability in todays growing world than obscure Irish poets or outdated movies.Sone3452 (talk) 01:07, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- However, I will delete the sentence containing a blatant advertisement for a forthcoming event. Deb (talk) 09:32, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I think this is a prime example of someone having their passing 15 minutes of fame. Nearly all the major attention he received was over a short period of time when competing on a television series. Now his only claim to notability is having a large number of social media followers. Unfortunately, that doesn't quite satisfy our standards. The promotional tone isn't quite G11-worthy but is definitely a violation of NPOV. SITH (talk) 15:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most of his fame as a micro-celebrity came before he was featured on any television show, and I think the notion that you would dismiss someone's notability who interacts with close to a million people on a perpetual basis, because of the branding 'micro celebrity' is somewhat foolish. If you choose to consider the reach and impact of these individuals, whilst choosing to mark obscure Irish poets as notable (for example), you risk the chance of becoming outdated and irrelevant. With modern influence and the age of social media, notions like Bourdieu’s theory of the rise of celebrity (1993) have become outdated and rather it is rather apparent that the notability of 'micro-celebrities' in terms of their influence has surpassed that of the traditional celebrity and consequently the idea of a micro-celebrity with a reach of almost 1 million people not being considered notable is a notion that asks do you consider the notability of significant 'micro-celebrities' or risk getting left behind.Sone3452 (talk) 01:02, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sone3452: I'm just interpreting the guidelines as they exist. If you want to change the policy, you could always start a conversation at WT:ANYBIO or WP:VPP. SITH (talk) 18:31, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." If you consider his field to be social media influencing, fitness or micro-celebrity, it's hard to make an argument that he doesn't make a widely recognised contribution to it.Sone3452 (talk) 01:42, 16 November 2018 (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.