Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danny MacAskill

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 keep. No arguments for deletion besides the nominator (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Danny MacAskill

Person only known for one internet video - WP:ONEVENT, will likely never be heard of again Passportguy (talk) 12:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep; per my reply on your talk page. Person meets basic basic notability criteria for people. Has been the subject of many news articles, to show a few:

And is taking part in more then one event, see:

Keep Plenty of in-depth coverage. It's not one event; the video gained him attention initially but the coverage is not about the video, it is primarily about him. One event is more for ordinary people who get involved in something like a murder or win the lottery. This guy is known for his career. Drawn Some (talk) 13:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could you provide (and add to the article) references that he currebtly has a career notable as such. All articles I read always introduce him as "the Youtube sensation" or "the person known for his stunts on Youtube"

My main concern is that come 6 months no one will be talking about this person or his videos as the internet community moves on to new "wonders". Now if indeed his videos have a lasting effect, then he should be added then, but until they actually do, all of this effect is purely speculative. Passportguy (talk) 13:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely understand your concern, but I think you're focusing too much on the YouTube and not so much on his bicycling abilities. Re-read WP:ONEVENT, it specifically is about whether the event or the people involved in it should be covered. That guideline would imply that the article should be about his YouTube celebrity instead of him. Just think of YouTube as another media channel, they broke the news, then everyone else picked up on it. Drawn Some (talk) 14:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if someone could provide sources where he his discussed independantly of his Youtube video, e.g. for winning a national championship etc, I'd have no objection to him having his article. But so far I haven't seen that, so I have to assume that once people "move on", so will he be forgotten. The main thing you have to ask yourself is : Will this person be remembered in 50 years ? Very unlikely unless he accomplishes more than this video and a number of interwiews and invitations based on temporary internet craze. If he does do anything notable in the future he may well be remembered, but at this point that is purely speculation. Passportguy (talk) 14:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't actually looked for links which don't mention his YouTube video, but what does it matter if all the links do mention it? And what does it matter if people "move on", that won't take away his notabillity will it? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does. Notability needs to ber permament in order for a person to have his own Wikipedia article. The fact that in 12 months no-one remembers a person and no-one or -thing has been permamently affected by him i a clear indication that the person weas not notable enough in the first place. Crazes, hypes or "internet wonders" may be notable if they recieve such high levels of coverage that they actually stand out as a notable example of that category, but if we keep adding articles on people with very fleeting notabilty, Wikipedia will become more of a news source on the newsest hypes and crazes than an actual encyclopedia. Passportguy (talk) 14:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed out in my support, he has recieved "high levels of coverage". And he meets WP:BIO so I don't see how you can argue that he's not notable. And your argument of "might not be known in 12 months", isn't a good argument, and could be applied to any person - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:NTEMP "However, Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability" If no-one is talking about him in 12 months, then he isn't notable. That goes for any person, indeed. If they are stil taking about him, then he is and was notable. Thus this article should be re-added then. Or someone actually finds trace of him being notable beyond his video, in which case I'd be more than happy to retract my objections, as I have already stated above. Passportguy (talk) 14:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See my keep vote, there are news reports about more then one event, and news reports about him are still pouring in. Also, from WP:NTEMP: "a topic needs to have had sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet the general notability guideline, but it does not need to have ongoing coverage from news sources", it does have sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet the general notability guideline, and thus doesn't need any more. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Passportguy, what is the one event? Drawn Some (talk) 15:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His Youtube video - the thing is is known for. Passportguy (talk) 15:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which video, the one with 0.5 million views from Sept 2008 or the one with 5.6 million views from April 2009? Or one of the other ones? Drawn Some (talk) 15:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or do you mean his whole channel? Drawn Some (talk) 15:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting a bit silly. Yes, I do mean his channel. Thouasands of people have channels that are clicked by millions of people every day, and that fact doesn't make them notable. But - If you believe that having a series of internet Youtube videos and getting fleeting fame from them is sufficient, then that is okay. However I strongly believe that if Wikipedia still exists in 10 or 20 years and is cluttered by articles on people that had short bursts of semi-fame soon to be forgotten again, it is not very likely to be considered a serious resource. Passportguy (talk) 15:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Passportguy, I agree with you about cluttering up the encyclopedia with cruft but the guidelines are what they are and they are intended to include this guy. Besides, a YouTube channel isn't an event, he's a stunt bicyclist and has gotten a significant amount of in-depth coverage in all sorts of media because of it. I give an opinion of "keep" on stuff I don't like all the time because it is notable and verifiable. Drawn Some (talk) 15:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again - and I think I've stated this repeatedly now - if someone could provide a source that he has recieved "significant amount of in-depth coverage" on anything unrelated to his his youtube video, i.e. because whatever he did then was noted not just because he currently is a "youtube star" then I'd be fine with the article. I don't have anything against stunt bicyclists and if he is noted as an accomplished one, then he'll likely be noted as such in the future as well. However in the absense of this I'm not at all sure that, if what he is doing is only noticed because of youtube, that what he is doing is notable at all. Passportguy (talk) 15:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Crocker (internet celebrity) Drawn Some (talk) 16:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Once the BBC and the Times have major stories it's notable. Not one event, as he's essentially made a career out of doing it. There's an earlier Times ref back in 06. [1]. It's the cycling, not the video that's notable. DGG (talk) 00:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets basic criteria as noted above. Notability should be an objective assessment not a subjective look at his likely career prospects. This guy has received tons of coverage in the UK Kernel Saunters (talk) 09:41, 26 May 2009 (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.