Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Going

Ben_Going

Delete Article is nominated but it is lacks factual information and is written like a fan site and/or autobiography for a person who is currently living. It lacks neutrality based on edits made by close friends and appears to be an advertisement for Vlogger. The page has been up for over a year and the content is misleading and counter factual. It redas like a resume/cv or advert for "his career". This "vlogger" has threatened to delete his youtube account several times, and uploads copyrighted material which against the TOS of both this site and YouTube.Sexyorge

• Keep - I'm seeing reliable sources including The New York Times, The Associated Press, and CNET. The article is a little spammy, but it looks like it just needs a little clean-up. --Haemo 01:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - He got a passing reference in the NYT article, a passing reference in the CNet article, and a passing reference in the AP article. In none of those three did he receive significant coverage. He doesn't meet the notability guidelines, there is really nothing else to it. cacophony ◄► 18:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Primarily for Haemo's reasons. It was already nominated for deletion review, and that seemed to go well.[1] For the record, I wrote most of the article; but I am not, as Sexyorge accuses, the subject's "close friend". I've never once corresponded with Going, either in the "real world" or through the internet. Ichormosquito 02:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Haemo. Also, note that the nominator appears to have placed a second prod tag instead of an AfD notice on the page. I have since fixed this. Maxamegalon2000 05:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep per existence of WP:RS.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 07:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I'm seeing unreliable sources including The New York Times, The Associated Press, and CNET. For example in the NYT article, never did it state he auditioned for the movie Jackass.... Associated Press, Going ranks as "one of the best-known members of the YouTube community is a lie, the AP never stated this information...Information was never given from these sites, they were all made up to advertise the story..... The article is a little spammy,it looks like it was made a fansite it totally needs to be deleted. --jillgobean0 16:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You're blatantly misrepresenting the article's sources: everything you said is false. I took the liberty of resubmitting your comment in the order in which it was posted. Ichormosquito 17:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

disagree, in fact you Ichormosquito the one you wrote edit and article are misrepresenting and misciting your sources such as New York Times article. I agree with other users. No where does the article state that Boh3m3 was part of Jackass or auditioned. In fact, all it said was that he was inspired (techincally "aspired"). the "video" in question is set to private, and lacks credibility because it's inutile. nevertheless, the article needs expert attention and less bias. nevertheless, the article needs expert attention and less bias first-person ,opinioned worthless material. Sexyorge

The quotation from the AP is real ... someone is lying. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The quotation from the NYT is real ... someone is lying. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

jillgobean0 is an account created just to vote on this. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

For a more specific reference to the Jackass thing, try this: "ExcChatting With Ben Going (Boh3m3 On You Tube)" And just so we're clear, that bit of information was never meant to portray notability; it's just background. I'm sure many people try to get on Jackass. Ichormosquito 19:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• delete - whilst some youtubers are notable, like geriatric1927 and LG15 i srsly doubt boh3m3 is - admittedly he was popular, but was assisted by the many fake subscribers he created for himself - and he is now much further down the list - he is losing popularity fast - not notable - delete Shoopshoop 16:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Admins, please be on the lookout for sock puppet accounts. I hate to be paranoid, but Shoopshoop posted three minutes after jillgobean0. Ichormosquito 17:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • admins - plz do check - i dont use sockpuppets and i am sure it will take little efort to realise than i am not jillgobean0

- thx Shoopshoop 19:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Also, user jillgobean0 attempted to edit out Haemo's "keep" comment. I brought it back. Ichormosquito 17:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: This isn't even remotely deserving of Wikipedia coverage. We can't cover every youtuber... Internet phenomena like that are covered by other sources, and they do not belong on Wikipedia. --Josmul123 18:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you are trying to use the slippery slope argument. Its better to quote Wikipedia guidelines. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

We don't attempt to cover "every YouTuber". What cross-section we have at YouTube celebrities is closely monitored for notability and kept at a manageable size. I know this isn't the most valid argument, but Going is at least as notable as anyone there. Ichormosquito 19:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Plenty of reliable sources, he even has a photo in the New York Times article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Fails to meet Wikipedia notability guidelines. That is all. cacophony ◄► 18:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

What specific part of the guideline are you referring to? Its like saying "Its in the Bible, go look it up", Please cite one or more of the very specific reasons for deletion from the guideline. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The ones that dictate that a subject must have been the subject of significant coverage in several reliable sources. A passing mention is not significant coverage, yet that is what he received. He is not notable by Wikipedia guidelines, and thus I cannot in good faith vote to keep this article. cacophony ◄► 18:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

They just have to have enough coverage so the facts can be verified, and this is a "slam dunk", to quote George Tenet. The New York Times and the AP are both reliable. The media determines notability, not Wikipedians. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect. The subject of a Wikipedia article must necessarily be deemed notable by Wikipedia guidelines, which you can find at WP:Notability. What the "media determines" is irrelevant, Wikipedia has long-standing guidelines on this very subject. To simply dismiss them as you have done is illogical and irresponsible. By the way, I indented your comment by a tab to improve the page formatting. cacophony ◄► 19:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Fails to meet Wikipedia notability guidelines. --Mikeskehan 19:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Gag name.--Edtropolis 19:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • although that is funny - wikipedia is NOT a humor site - i assume you mean't delete

Shoopshoop