Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Sledd (5th 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 speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete !votes. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

William Sledd[edit]

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

Completing listing for IP editor. Rationale is as follows:

~~Delete~~ Withdrawn by nominator I feel the article should be deleted for the following reasons:

The article fails to meet the "Significant coverage" portion, as defined in the General Notability Guidelines. The policy states that, the coverage should be significant so that, "no original research is needed to extract the content." While there are a few articles about Mr. Sledd's (now defunct) "Ask a Gay Man" series from his hometown and other sources or the fact that his account was relatively popular in the early days of YouTube, they are insufficient for a standalone article about him. This can be clearly contrasted with Michael Buckley, a YouTuber who is notable and has significant coversage. The coverage of Mr. Sledd is not significant and thus, there should not be a standalone article about him. Because of this lack of sources, the article consists almost entirely of original research relying on primary sources because of a lack of secondary sources about Mr. Sledd. A quick survey of these will reveal that Mr. Sledd was mentioned in a few secondary sources surveying early YouTube posters and where they are today, but he does not rise to a level of notability for a standalone article.

The article fails to meet the "Sources" portion of the General Notability Guidelines. Because of the dearth of secondary sources about Mr. Sledd's life, the article's writers have relied on primary sources (his videos on YouTube). Perhaps an article about the "Ask a Gay Man" series he had would be more appropriate than a stand-alone article on Mr. Sledd.

The article fails the "Independent of the subject" portion of the General Notability Guidelines, because the sources necessary for a stand-alone article on the subject were produced by the subject himself (i.e. primary sources).

"No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason," from the Wikipedia is not a Newspaper page. Mr. Sledd has not produced ongoing videos in his series and is inactive. It seems that he simply took advantage of the flashpan that was the budding days of YouTube. A quick check shows his latest video on his account has 15,000 views (11 months old). Does this really rise to the level of Internet Celebrity? Again, while his Ask a Gay Man series may be notable, I doubt that he, as an individual, is. While Wikipedia makes clear that "notability is not temporary" and that a notable topic may fade into obscurity, I believe a re-evaluation of the notability of this article is in order. A voter in a previous article stated that deletion would probably be pointless because Mr. Sledd was a growing trend and would continue to grow. The opposite has in fact happened and Mr. Sledd has chosen to remain a low-profile individual. This is why people should avoid speculating on the future during deletion discussions.

Many argued in previous deletion discussions that Mr. Sledd should be included as notable by virtue of his popularity on YouTube. According to VidStatsX he is the 7317th most subscribed and the 9237th most viewed. If one is to espouse that argument, should the top 10,000 of YouTube be included in Wikipedia? Disregarding this, if we look to external sources for notability, we see that they are few and far between. There were a few blogs in 2009 of former viewers wondering where he went or documenting early YouTube stars... but does this really warrant inclusion in Wikipedia??

Withdrawn by nominator The article has been completely re-written. I now believe that there are sufficient sources to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. I was not aware many of the original sources had been removed. Kudos to whoever re-wrote the article; great work. 207.255.102.180 (talk) 04:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

My completion of this nomination should not be construed as a !vote in either direction. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - past nominations ended in 2 deletions and 2 keeps, more recently. Bearian (talk) 22:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is true, but should be taken with a grain of salt! It is worth noting that the two keeps were within a few days of one another. Really, the fourth deletion nomination should never have happened (it was only like 2 days after the third nomination). If you read the comments, it was a speedy keep really because a deletion discussion had happened only a few days prior, not because of a firm belief of notability. The way I see it, really there were two deletes, 1 keep, and one nomination that should have never happened. It's something to keep in mind. Also, the last nomination was in 2008, while Mr. Sledd was still growing in popularity on YouTube. As I stated, one of the participants in that discussion voted a weak keep because he believed Mr. Sledd would continue to grow. The opposite has happened and Mr. Sledd has left YouTube. It's been around 6 years and there's an article on Wikipedia about an individual that does not belong in Wikipedia. According to the automated tools I see, his account is 7317 on the most subscribed, and is 9237 on most viewed. There were many people arguing that Mr. Sledd should be included solely because of his popularity on YouTube. They argued that THAT was enough for his notability, and that YouTube was the new frontier of the internet, etc.... Are the top 10,000 people on YouTube supposed to have articles? In my opinion, this is why people should avoid including people whose notability is not established by outside, independent sources. 207.255.102.180 (talk) 04:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A quick look at the history of the article, and then for sources available, show that the article has been routinely targeted removing content, sources, and even the main photo. Looking for sources there are many available. Including all those that had been removed in the past. The article needs to be redone completely, but it's not a tear-down. Just because his notability was tied to YouTubing does not make him less notable or respectable, just non-traditional. This is a clean up job. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:44, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:30, 27 January 2014 (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.