Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Lewis (slackliner)

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 Failes WP:ATHLETE, WP:N. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Andy Lewis (slackliner)

Andy Lewis (slackliner) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

No credible sources provided to show that he is well-known. Links have been given to Youtube videos (not appropriate), web discussion forums (not appropriate), and a local about-town newspaper article that mentioned him in passing. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 06:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC) Additionally, suspect user Georgewilliamupton is a sockpuppet of Gumby2386 due to account creation time and scope of edits. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 06:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• I can see why you might think that I am a "sock puppet" of Gumby2386 based on the creation time of my account, however there is a perfectly logical explanation. I use Wikipedia regularly, but thus far, I have never found it necessary to contribute to any articles. Today, I saw that someone was contending the notability of Andy Lewis and knew that anyone who knows a thing about slacklining that was made aware of this would speak up like I did. So I created my account directly for the purpose of responding to you and providing more information as to Andy Lewis' accomplishments and notability. As for the "scope of my edits" I'm really not sure what you're talking about here. Do you mean the fact that I know something about the topic at hand? I'm not really sure about the scope of your knowledge on the subject, to be perfectly frank. How can your opinion about Andy Lewis' notability be valid considering you've already shown your ignorance on the topic by claiming a lack of references to "slackjawing" in the first discussion? The article never once mentions "slackjawing"... and I'm really not sure what it is to be honest. As for the references, let me ask about youtube videos. Why wouldn't a youtube video be a valid reference if it actively proves something related to the person's notability (he was on Japanese national TV; he spoke and showed films at the most well known mountain film festival in the US; he took first place at an international slackline competition)? These are references showing he has done all these things plus two separate news articles (not one) and an interview on KGNU Radio. Let me also mention the fact that I am a current resident of Japan and through viewing Andy Lewis' performance on Japanese television in 2007 I have become a big fan of Andy Lewis' slacklining work. I think having fans all over the world should be a fair indicator of notoriety. (Georgewilliamupton (talk) 09:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC))

Answers to above comment

1. The two accounts do superficially look like a case of sockpuppetry, but the explanation given by Georgewilliamupton is quite possible, and I am willing to assume good faith.
2. In answer to "How can your opinion about Andy Lewis' notability be valid considering you've already shown your ignorance". For very good reasons Wikipedia does not base notability on "I know about this and you don't, so you will have to take my word for it". We base notability on the existence of substantial coverage in reliable published sources independent of the subject. (You can read more details in the general notability guideline and in the specific guideline on notability of people if you like.) Someone who knows about a particular subject is, of course, more likely to be able to know where to find suitable sources, and since you evidently have some knowledge of the subject please do give us references to sources if you can. However, once sources have been given, someone with no knowledge of the subject is just as able as someone with knowledge of it to assess whether those sources contain substantial independent coverage. In fact, if anything, someone not involved in the subject is more likely to be able to look at the evidence from a detached, impartial, point of view.
3. Sometimes a YouTube video may be a good source of information about particular facts about someone who has already been shown to be notable. However, a YouTube video is almost never of any value at all in establishing notability, because YouTube is not a reliable source. Anyone at all can post a video to YouTube, and so they cannot be relied on. In fact even when I wrote above that sometimes a YouTube video may be a good source of information about particular facts, that "sometimes" should perhaps have said "very occasionally", for the same reason.
4. The facts which you state about Lewis ("he was on Japanese national TV" etc) sound quite impressive, but do not in themselves constitute proof of notability. For example, many millions of people have at some time in their life been briefly on television but are not notable. Clearly someone who has been a star of a long running show is likely to be notable, but "has been on national television" is very open ended: has he featured prominently in a long running series? has he been the main focus of a one-off feature? has there once been a single brief mention of him? or what? If the fact that he has been on television has received substantial coverage in reliable independent sources then point us to those sources. Otherwise it is not evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability criteria. I have concentrated on television appearance as an example, but similar comments apply to the other examples you give.

I hope this has helped to clarify what sort of evidence is needed to establish notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I live in Japan too and can confirm that almost any foreigner with a funny trick can get themselves on TV. The site "Japan Probe" often posts YouTube clips of one-trick ponies being oohed and aahed over on morning variety shows. Thank you JamesBWatson for taking the time to provide that information. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 12:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the thorough clarification JamesBWatson. It's clear that Wikipedia is more interested in text sources, which makes very good sense. How does Wikipedia plan on evolving to reflect changing forms of documentation and the demise of print? This article is documenting one of the foremost proprietors of a popular (and rapidly growing) sport, but one which so far is not well documented in writing. The Wiki "Slackline" article itself is supported by a series of blog posts and about five videos, plus the one New York Times article. There's a bit more evidence for "Yoga Slacklining", which, if you probe around, is an extremely minor portion of the slackline community. My post on Andy is supported by blog posts, videos, and two articles from small newspapers (admittedly less important than the New York Times). Furthermore, Andy is significantly more well-documented in Germany, but as I do not speak German, I have had difficulty recovering sources. I don't think everyone on Wikipedia should have to get into a major newspaper to deserve coverage, but perhaps this is simply a problem of different definitions. I understand that Wikipedia must maintain certain standards at the expense of greater information.

As to Simon-in-sagamihara: your tone is unwelcome. Georgewilliamupton is not my "sockpuppet" but a person who also thinks Andy deserves mention. His name is pretty apparent from his username - look him up. Additionally, your disdain for the culture of your resident country is a bit troubling. If you want to start over and treat me like an intelligent, well-meaning, interested individual, I'll listen to what you say. Until then, you're pissing in the wind and your commentary is not welcome here. Gumby2386 (talk) 15:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

No strawmen please, the sentence "your disdain for the culture of your resident country is a bit troubling" is a little thin on substantiation, much like a tissue. If you re-read my comment you'll find that I simply mentioned the criterion for appearing on a morning variety program here. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 09:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• Regarding the sockpuppet comments, I have to agree with Simon-in-sagamihara that these accounts are related; if it's not sockpuppetry, it's meatpuppetry, which is hardly better. Hairhorn (talk) 18:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• Georgewilliamupton is a friend of mine, if that's what you mean by meatpuppetry. I fail to see how that affects his support for Mr. Lewis's inclusion in Wikipedia, which is unrelated to our friendship. From Wikipedia itself: "Wired columnist Lore Sjöberg puts "meat puppet" first on a satirical list of "common terms used at Wikipedia," giving its supposed Wikipedia meaning as "someone you disagree with"." So forgive me if I'm not moved by your commentary.

Would you like me to go on message boards and ask all the people who worship Andy Lewis as an icon of a sport to post here? It would only be too easy. Or would that be "meatpuppetry"? Should Andy Lewis's fan base have discovered this Wikipedia page in the 3 seconds it existed before being declared deletion-worthy? 99.186.40.89 (talk) 19:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for confusion, that last post was me. Forgot to log in. Gumby2386 (talk) 19:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• After more closely reading the "notability" guidelines, I am even more convinced that Mr. Lewis deserves a Wikipedia page. Under "Athletes", No. 2 states that notability can be gained by "People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships." Mr. Lewis was the victor of the only formal World Championship of slacklining so far convened, and is generally considered to be at the highest amateur level of slacklining. There are no slackline professionals yet (though Mr. Lewis is sponsored by numerous companies) but Mr. Lewis is probably the closest to being considered professional. Gumby2386 (talk) 21:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I would like to see some better references. Slacklining, just like tightrope walking, is not a widely known sport outside of its professional applications in the circus (which is where I know it through research for a character...). It may be difficult to find the references required, but if the article goes now - find them and try again. As it stands, there's definitely too much YouTube and not enough independent. Peridon (talk) 22:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The sources provided for Andy Lewis (slackliner) do show significant breadth. His notoriety becomes apparent through many different types of sources: news, websites, radio interview, and video (although I understand that most of the time video does not prove notability, I do believe that in the case of Andy Lewis' showcase at the Banff Mountain Film Festival, this video does in fact prove his appearance at this event and his notability, considering that he was asked to speak and show films at one of the most prestigious outdoor film festivals in existence.) (Georgewilliamupton (talk) 01:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC))

• Curious about the notability required to deserve a Wikipedia article, I took a look at Andy Lewis (cricketer) by chance and was quite surprised. Andy Lewis (cricketer) has an standing Wikipedia entry, but only two sources. His notability is apparently derived from his cricket statistics from only two matches played, which are both linked from the same cricket website. I'm curious about how being a mere blip on the map (with only one website that shows his name/batting statistics as a source) proves notability. Why is someone who is a unknown player in a well known sport (that has a huge total number of players) considered more notable than someone who is widely known and at the very forefront of a relatively new sport that is growing rapidly in popularity? (Georgewilliamupton (talk) 01:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC))

Upon reviewing the requirements for notability according to Wikipedia's standards again, I have found that Andy Lewis (slackliner) does in fact complete 2 of 2 of the notability standards for athletes listed in the notability of people guide.

Athletes 1. People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis.

• (He is a sponsored, professional slackliner that has competed at that level.)

2. People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships.

• (He not only competed in the world championships of slacklining, but also took first prize.) (Georgewilliamupton (talk) 02:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC))

1. He is not a professional. If he has been given some sponsorship that is not the same as competing "at the fully professional level". Besides, where are the sources for even that claim? Even Gumby2386 say "There are no slackline professionals yet (though Mr. Lewis is sponsored by numerous companies) but Mr. Lewis is probably the closest to being considered professional". Unfortunately "the closest there is to being professional" is not the same as "fully professional", nor even near it. If a sport has not reached the level where there are professionals then nobody is notable for being a professional at it.
2. When I was a teenager I made up a card game. I invited some of my friends to take part in the "world championship" of the game. Yes, it was open to all the people in the world who knew how to play the game, so it was a real world championship. It would be absurd, though, on the basis of that to claim that I had a level of notability equivalent to that of Olympic competitors. If Lewis did indeed win the "world championship" for slacklining then we still need to establish that slacklining has a status sufficient to justifying taking that as equivalent to Olympic standard, or world championship in a more recognised sport. Besides, where is the evidence that Lewis did win such a "world championship"? I can only assume this refers to the international section of the UK Slackline Masters Competition, but not even the source cited describes this as a "world championship". Finally, the only source cited for this is a forum post. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• • Please note two new sources added to the main page. One detailing his first place win at the Natural Games in France (note: this is a separate competition won by Andy Lewis, not to be confused with his International Slackline Masters win) and one discussing his participation and highline setting in the "Petzl Roctrip". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgewilliamupton (talk • contribs) 04:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
• Comment In the 'Notes' section, the YouTube links and the slacklining forum do not count as reliable independent references. This is how Wikipedia views it. I don't think the external links help much, either. I quote from the Colorado Daily:

"Slacklining's popularity has boomed, but it's not a sport to go pro in -- yet. Andy Lewis, 23, one of the competitors for the Saturday competition, is about as close to pro as you can get. He has traveled to Europe for events and works at the Boulder-based U.S. distribution center for Gibbon Slacklines. He also teaches slackline lessons. "There's not really a pro slackliner stage yet, but we're getting there," Lewis said. "I'm trying to at least create a stage for myself." Lewis is going to do demos and help instruct slackliners after all of the competitions end Saturday night. But he'll be teaching close to the ground. "Slacklining is not only my hobby and my love and my passion now, it's my job." To me, that's not very in-depth coverage. It's a base line to be built up from. The other links look to me like mentions even briefer. I've been seen on Japanese TV too, but don't claim any notability from it. Please listen to what is being said here. Going on and on does your case no good. Read the relevant policies. I do agree about some of the other sports persons - please feel free to tag any you consider badly referenced or not notable. And please could someone explain how the 'achievements' of Lewis differ from things I've seen in pro circus performances, apart perhaps from not taking place over limestone gorges? Please note also that I am trying to help you. As is often the case at AfD, this is not easy... Peridon (talk) 11:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• Speedy delete in case anyone gets this far down. Doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE, WP:N, or WP:BIO. THF (talk) 14:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Concerning the suggestion of sockpuppetry. I have examined both the content and the timing of the edits by the two accounts involved, and I now find the evidence much more persuasive than I did when I said above that I would assume good faith. I now believe we do have a case of sockpuppetry. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
• Delete Despite attempts by myself and others to clarify what is needed, the one or two editors (depending on whether we have a sockpuppet) arguing for "keep" have failed to provide any independent reliable sources establishing notability. Even if we accept their/his interpretation of "world championship" and "as near to professional as any", without reliable independent sources we could have no article. Many of the sources given in the article do not support the statements to which they are attached at all. For example, the statement "He was the first slackliner to successfully land a backflip back on the line (and later, the first to land a bi-axis slackline aerial)" has a reference to a YouTube video, which simply shows someone (presumably Lewis) slacklining. It does not state that he was the first to do anything. Note that this is in addition to the fact that a YouTube video is not a reliable source. Likewise the statement that "his films were also showcased at the Banff Mountain Film Festival in 2009" is referenced to another YouTube video. This one shows Lewis standing on a stage talking to an audience, and then showing a video clip of himself. Does this mean that "his films were showcased", or does it mean that during the festival he hired a hall in which to do a self-presentation, or what? Again, this is quite separate from the fact that YouTube is not a reliable source. I have searched on Google and can find no evidence at all of any support for "his films were showcased at the Banff Mountain Film Festival" in anything that could possibly be considered a reliable independent source. Very similar remarks apply to other "sources" given in the article: all but one of them is either not reliable, not independent, or does not support the statement to which it is attached, or some combination of two or even all three of those. The only reliable independent source cited is a "Daily Camera" article, which, in the course of several paragraphs, quotes a few sentences from Lewis. The only assertions in the article which are supported by this article are that Lewis works for Gibbon Slacklines, and that he "advocates for the legality of slacklining" (or, to quote exactly what the source says, that he is involved in "lobbying the city of Boulder to relax its rules"). The rest of the article is effectively unsourced. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I find the timing of the "Request for Speedy Deletion" to be a bit odd. User Gumby2386 created the page on 05:09, 18 February 2010. Then less than One Minute later (05:09, 18 February 2010), user Simon-in-sagamihara tags it for speedy deletion. Gumby continues to improve the article, and less than two hours later (06:48, 18 February 2010) Simon nominates it for deletion. Why pray tell are articles being put up for deletion the same minute/day/week they were created? This was not a salted topic. The nominator had opportunity to mentor the author rather than try and shut down his article. I question the nominators motivation. AWhiteElk (talk) 18:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Perhaps Simon came across the article at New Page Patrol. While very fast speedy-tagging of new articles can be discouraging to their authors (and in this case I personally feel that the initial article didn't meet A7), the fact that he spotted a new article and tagged it quickly does not necessarily betray anything about his motivation. Olaf Davis (talk) 18:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• But it was done within one minute of the articles creation!?! The author mighta/shoulda worked on it in the userspace and then submitted the article for listing. But the fact that the nominator jumped on the deletion bandwagon instead of allowing/helping the author to improve the article, makes me wonder if the nominator had any constructive motivations at all! The author continued to improve the article and less than two hours later the nominator put it on the AfD list and work on the article halted. Seems like a destructive waste of time, energy, and talent to me. There are more constructive routes to take other than deletion. WP:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion AWhiteElk (talk) 18:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
• Furthermore; how could the nominator possibly have had time to do the due diligence required before nominating an article for speedy deletion? Even had the nominator found the article within one second of its listing, could the nominator have had time to make a proper judgment in less than one minutes time? (with enough time left over to tag the article for deletion) Doesn't seem proper to me. Seems hasty. And taking the deletion route while the author is clearly in the process of improving the article, seems misguided. AWhiteElk (talk) 18:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Keep and Improve A Google search came up with Many pages of info verifying Andy Lewis's role in the creation of this sport. His role, and notability to the sport is clearly evident. I leave the "experts" to debate which ones are "credible". For now though, this is a new article; I say give the author time and assistance to improve it. Put all this deletion energy and debate to better use by assisting the author to write a better article! AWhiteElk (talk) 18:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC) — AWhiteElk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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.