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 no consensus. Bordering on "keep", but the outcome is the same: the article is kept, at least for now. Opinions are divided about whether the coverage is sufficient for an article, and this is something editors can in good faith disagree about. Sandstein 11:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)reply
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to
assume good faith on the part of others and to
sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
I'm confused by your claim that the
Heat Street contact us page shows evidence that this is an unreliable source. Can you explain further? (full disclosure: I am an occasional Heat Street contributor.)
Mark Schierbecker (
talk)
01:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)reply
I linked the absence of an editorial policy, the absence of a reputation for reliability and fact-checking, and I only mentioned it as acknowledgement of the biography's talk page discussion. If you want to discuss further, the best venue for your question is
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, where, for instance,
a current thread addresses Heat Street by name. czar08:30, 13 March 2017 (UTC)reply
It isn't common practice for online-only publications to list their editorial policy on the mast head. Not publishing an editorial policy is not the same as not having one. Still don't get how this is relevant.
Mark Schierbecker (
talk)
09:27, 13 March 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Mark Schierbecker It is mainly relevant because if Heat Street had a written editorial policy, it would likely be considered a reliable source (rather than a marginal one). If Heat Street could be considered a reliable source in this article then the notability of this subject wouldn't be in question. InsertCleverPhraseHere19:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)reply
It says on your user page that you're a reporter for Heat Street. Isn't that a conflict issue if you're using sources of a publication you're part of for an article you made?
GamerPro6404:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Didn't notice the disclosure at the top. Also, looking through Google News there is an article about Sargon's game from
Siliconera that can be useful. Also saw a piece about him on Gizmodo recently but am not sure its appropriate for the article.
GamerPro6405:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete as a non-notable person. Youtube views & videos are not sufficient for establishing notability if he has not achieved consistent, significant coverage in independent reliable sources, and I don't see much having changed with the article from when it was first deleted.
PeterTheFourth (
talk)
07:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Being mentioned by name once in an article, especially for the same event, is not
significant coverage. Don't see how you can write a biography with solely passing mentions, the LA Times opinion piece, and the Sunday Times mentioned in the nom czar16:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)reply
I would say the coverage is sufficient to make an article of it. But that is my opinion. I wonder what the administrators think of it.
Jeff5102 (
talk)
21:54, 13 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep There are plenty of sources here to demonstrate notability. It might be marginal but its there; how about this article in
Vice that has some significant coverage
[1]? 2016 might have been too soon, but it doesn't seem like it is too soon any more. InsertCleverPhraseHere10:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC)reply
I'd consider it more than a passing mention IMO. The article isn't just about him, true, but mentions him 6 times in total and of those discussed in the article, he gets the most coverage. Again, as I said, it is marginal, but it is there. InsertCleverPhraseHere18:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Moreover, I don't see the point in deleting articles like these (marginally notable bios where a fanbase really, really, wants an article). If we don't have an article there will be constant creations of poor quality submissions that will either end up at AfD or if the page is create-protected will end up wasting loads of time over at AfC. Also you can end up in a situation like over at
Paul Joseph Watson where the page was deleted numerous times, create protected, and then even after the subject did get significant coverage, the article languished as a draft because of creation protection. Better to have a short stub on the topic that is decently written and can be improved. InsertCleverPhraseHere19:16, 13 March 2017 (UTC)reply
The WP policy is to delete articles on topics that haven't received
significant coverage. All fans can do in that model is lobby for more coverage. This is an encyclopedia, not a catalog of sensational headlines. czar01:29, 14 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete: Unlike fellow Youtuber
Paul Joseph Watson, who has received significant coverage for the Sweden/Tim Pool offer, Sargon doesn't seem to be notable yet, even though he has a dedicated fanbase that is growing. But fanbase or number of followers don't establish notability, and most of the coverage in RS are indeed passing mentions, with only some blog entries discussing him in more detail. And per Grayfell, an interview in The Rubin Report doesn't establish notability.
κατάσταση18:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Politically charged or contentious AfDs are just like that, they tend to pull a bunch of people out of the woodwork (both for and against). The argument for deletion of this article really depends on how you define 'passing mentions' (is an article that is 1/3 about the subject a 'passing mention'?--IMO it is not). To say that this subject is not notable also requires completely dismissing Heat Street coverage. InsertCleverPhraseHere18:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment about 'Heat Street'. People who are voting delete seem to be dismissing
Heat Street as an unreliable source, despite a body of evidence that indicates that Heat Street issues retractions
[7] (issuing retractions is a sign of a reliable source). 2: that they are taken seriously as a journalistic source by the white house and other news outlets:
[8],
[9],
[10],
[11]. as well as being taken seriously as a journalistic source by
Factcheck.org[12].
Heatstreet alone has enough coverage of Benjamin to easily establish GNG
[13],
[14]. and there seems to be a body of evidence to establish that Heatstreet has a reputation as a reliable source among other reliable sources. InsertCleverPhraseHere18:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep - I honestly don't believe there's any real reason to delete the article. Even if the articles are in passing of Sargon, there's still information about him that can be used. Granted it'll end up as a weak article but still shows notability about the YouTuber.
GamerPro6405:39, 16 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep. There is enough coverage of the subject that is between passing mentions and substantial coverage, including ones that put him as one of the most prominent members of the right-wing Youtuber movement, that
WP:BASIC is met. ----
Patar knight - chat/contributions18:36, 16 March 2017 (UTC)reply
I believe that
this is what
Andres rojas22 is referring to. however, Jess Philips does not mention him by name in the article, but does refer to his actions, and the tweets she received from others as a result of his comment "I wouldn't even rape you." This particular article by Phillips doesn't contribute to Benjamin's notability (though the coverage of the same incident in the Sunday Times does). InsertCleverPhraseHere00:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete – It is
too soon for an article that would cover Benjamin encyclopedically. I am not convinced that the depth of coverage is substantial enough for a BLP, given that it consists almost exclusively of short opinion pieces and trivial mentions. Most of these are already included in the article itself or are discussed above, and I found no other substantial coverage after a thorough search. The opinion pieces (like the articles in the Los Angeles Times, telesur, and the Huffington Post, which is
republished at the Good Men Project) comprise the most substantial portion of this article's sourcing, and while they are useful additions to an article in representing the spectrum of opinion,
they are rarely reliable for statements of fact. I am extremely skeptical of counting Heat Street as an RS–it does not make any attempt to distinguish its mostly satirical opinion commentary (e.g.
"American Values Under Attack: Link Is Transgender for 10 Minutes in New ‘Zelda’ Game",
"Why Tracer Being Gay Is Offensive to Otherkin Like Me") from actual journalism.
User:Insertcleverphrasehere proposed that it is taken seriously as a journalistic source by several outlets, but this seems to be largely a misrepresentation of their positions: the articles all indicate the media "takes Heat Street seriously" in the sense that they were important to the administration's wiretapping story, but they do not characterize its work as serious journalism; even the most avid followers of Mensch's reporting described in the articles, like Spayd, couch their praise with "I have no idea whether it's true or not". This indicates, if anything, a poor reputation; as mentioned by Czar before, the lack of a written editorial policy only furthers this. Other available sourcing is far too trivial (see one-sentence mention in Salon, the one-sentence
scattered,
brief,
mentions on Buzzfeed News,
a few short sentences in The Daily Dot, a
tangential mention in VICE which devotes a short paragraph to the Jess Phillips incident and little more, etc.) The most substantial piece of journalism, this
Times article, is much better contextualized in the
Jess Phillips article. —
0xF8E8 (talk)
04:57, 21 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment I have inserted
this from
Inside Higher Ed, which is not enough for a Wikipedia-article in itself, but combined with all other references, I think it contributes to establish the notability of mr. Benjamin.
Jeff5102 (
talk)
09:21, 21 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep – very high profile on YouTube (> 150 million views) and set to get bigger. Cited by numerous bloggers as an influence.
Jprw (
talk)
14:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)reply
To be fair, the inaccuracies he described were minor (and have been fixed), and he concluded by saying that the article was a fair representation of him, including both criticism and counterpoints. InsertCleverPhraseHere20:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment: the inaccuracies mentioned by Benjamin were: a) year of birth and b) the year Sargon became active on Youtube. Both have been fixed. For the rest, mr. Benjamin said, in the description of his video: “And...it's not bad. Way better than the GamerGate one,” and in the vid itself: “There is nothing I object to,(4:49)” I fail to grasp how this could be “an indication that the sourcing does not exist to do justice to the topic.”
Jeff5102 (
talk)
08:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep – Clearly notable per N, being a known public figure with millions of views and news mentions. Although I can already see the wave after wave of inevitable edit-warring... --
Director(
talk)15:43, 23 March 2017 (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.
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 no consensus. Bordering on "keep", but the outcome is the same: the article is kept, at least for now. Opinions are divided about whether the coverage is sufficient for an article, and this is something editors can in good faith disagree about. Sandstein 11:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)reply
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to
assume good faith on the part of others and to
sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
I'm confused by your claim that the
Heat Street contact us page shows evidence that this is an unreliable source. Can you explain further? (full disclosure: I am an occasional Heat Street contributor.)
Mark Schierbecker (
talk)
01:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)reply
I linked the absence of an editorial policy, the absence of a reputation for reliability and fact-checking, and I only mentioned it as acknowledgement of the biography's talk page discussion. If you want to discuss further, the best venue for your question is
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, where, for instance,
a current thread addresses Heat Street by name. czar08:30, 13 March 2017 (UTC)reply
It isn't common practice for online-only publications to list their editorial policy on the mast head. Not publishing an editorial policy is not the same as not having one. Still don't get how this is relevant.
Mark Schierbecker (
talk)
09:27, 13 March 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Mark Schierbecker It is mainly relevant because if Heat Street had a written editorial policy, it would likely be considered a reliable source (rather than a marginal one). If Heat Street could be considered a reliable source in this article then the notability of this subject wouldn't be in question. InsertCleverPhraseHere19:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)reply
It says on your user page that you're a reporter for Heat Street. Isn't that a conflict issue if you're using sources of a publication you're part of for an article you made?
GamerPro6404:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Didn't notice the disclosure at the top. Also, looking through Google News there is an article about Sargon's game from
Siliconera that can be useful. Also saw a piece about him on Gizmodo recently but am not sure its appropriate for the article.
GamerPro6405:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete as a non-notable person. Youtube views & videos are not sufficient for establishing notability if he has not achieved consistent, significant coverage in independent reliable sources, and I don't see much having changed with the article from when it was first deleted.
PeterTheFourth (
talk)
07:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Being mentioned by name once in an article, especially for the same event, is not
significant coverage. Don't see how you can write a biography with solely passing mentions, the LA Times opinion piece, and the Sunday Times mentioned in the nom czar16:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)reply
I would say the coverage is sufficient to make an article of it. But that is my opinion. I wonder what the administrators think of it.
Jeff5102 (
talk)
21:54, 13 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep There are plenty of sources here to demonstrate notability. It might be marginal but its there; how about this article in
Vice that has some significant coverage
[1]? 2016 might have been too soon, but it doesn't seem like it is too soon any more. InsertCleverPhraseHere10:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC)reply
I'd consider it more than a passing mention IMO. The article isn't just about him, true, but mentions him 6 times in total and of those discussed in the article, he gets the most coverage. Again, as I said, it is marginal, but it is there. InsertCleverPhraseHere18:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Moreover, I don't see the point in deleting articles like these (marginally notable bios where a fanbase really, really, wants an article). If we don't have an article there will be constant creations of poor quality submissions that will either end up at AfD or if the page is create-protected will end up wasting loads of time over at AfC. Also you can end up in a situation like over at
Paul Joseph Watson where the page was deleted numerous times, create protected, and then even after the subject did get significant coverage, the article languished as a draft because of creation protection. Better to have a short stub on the topic that is decently written and can be improved. InsertCleverPhraseHere19:16, 13 March 2017 (UTC)reply
The WP policy is to delete articles on topics that haven't received
significant coverage. All fans can do in that model is lobby for more coverage. This is an encyclopedia, not a catalog of sensational headlines. czar01:29, 14 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete: Unlike fellow Youtuber
Paul Joseph Watson, who has received significant coverage for the Sweden/Tim Pool offer, Sargon doesn't seem to be notable yet, even though he has a dedicated fanbase that is growing. But fanbase or number of followers don't establish notability, and most of the coverage in RS are indeed passing mentions, with only some blog entries discussing him in more detail. And per Grayfell, an interview in The Rubin Report doesn't establish notability.
κατάσταση18:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Politically charged or contentious AfDs are just like that, they tend to pull a bunch of people out of the woodwork (both for and against). The argument for deletion of this article really depends on how you define 'passing mentions' (is an article that is 1/3 about the subject a 'passing mention'?--IMO it is not). To say that this subject is not notable also requires completely dismissing Heat Street coverage. InsertCleverPhraseHere18:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment about 'Heat Street'. People who are voting delete seem to be dismissing
Heat Street as an unreliable source, despite a body of evidence that indicates that Heat Street issues retractions
[7] (issuing retractions is a sign of a reliable source). 2: that they are taken seriously as a journalistic source by the white house and other news outlets:
[8],
[9],
[10],
[11]. as well as being taken seriously as a journalistic source by
Factcheck.org[12].
Heatstreet alone has enough coverage of Benjamin to easily establish GNG
[13],
[14]. and there seems to be a body of evidence to establish that Heatstreet has a reputation as a reliable source among other reliable sources. InsertCleverPhraseHere18:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep - I honestly don't believe there's any real reason to delete the article. Even if the articles are in passing of Sargon, there's still information about him that can be used. Granted it'll end up as a weak article but still shows notability about the YouTuber.
GamerPro6405:39, 16 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep. There is enough coverage of the subject that is between passing mentions and substantial coverage, including ones that put him as one of the most prominent members of the right-wing Youtuber movement, that
WP:BASIC is met. ----
Patar knight - chat/contributions18:36, 16 March 2017 (UTC)reply
I believe that
this is what
Andres rojas22 is referring to. however, Jess Philips does not mention him by name in the article, but does refer to his actions, and the tweets she received from others as a result of his comment "I wouldn't even rape you." This particular article by Phillips doesn't contribute to Benjamin's notability (though the coverage of the same incident in the Sunday Times does). InsertCleverPhraseHere00:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete – It is
too soon for an article that would cover Benjamin encyclopedically. I am not convinced that the depth of coverage is substantial enough for a BLP, given that it consists almost exclusively of short opinion pieces and trivial mentions. Most of these are already included in the article itself or are discussed above, and I found no other substantial coverage after a thorough search. The opinion pieces (like the articles in the Los Angeles Times, telesur, and the Huffington Post, which is
republished at the Good Men Project) comprise the most substantial portion of this article's sourcing, and while they are useful additions to an article in representing the spectrum of opinion,
they are rarely reliable for statements of fact. I am extremely skeptical of counting Heat Street as an RS–it does not make any attempt to distinguish its mostly satirical opinion commentary (e.g.
"American Values Under Attack: Link Is Transgender for 10 Minutes in New ‘Zelda’ Game",
"Why Tracer Being Gay Is Offensive to Otherkin Like Me") from actual journalism.
User:Insertcleverphrasehere proposed that it is taken seriously as a journalistic source by several outlets, but this seems to be largely a misrepresentation of their positions: the articles all indicate the media "takes Heat Street seriously" in the sense that they were important to the administration's wiretapping story, but they do not characterize its work as serious journalism; even the most avid followers of Mensch's reporting described in the articles, like Spayd, couch their praise with "I have no idea whether it's true or not". This indicates, if anything, a poor reputation; as mentioned by Czar before, the lack of a written editorial policy only furthers this. Other available sourcing is far too trivial (see one-sentence mention in Salon, the one-sentence
scattered,
brief,
mentions on Buzzfeed News,
a few short sentences in The Daily Dot, a
tangential mention in VICE which devotes a short paragraph to the Jess Phillips incident and little more, etc.) The most substantial piece of journalism, this
Times article, is much better contextualized in the
Jess Phillips article. —
0xF8E8 (talk)
04:57, 21 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment I have inserted
this from
Inside Higher Ed, which is not enough for a Wikipedia-article in itself, but combined with all other references, I think it contributes to establish the notability of mr. Benjamin.
Jeff5102 (
talk)
09:21, 21 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep – very high profile on YouTube (> 150 million views) and set to get bigger. Cited by numerous bloggers as an influence.
Jprw (
talk)
14:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)reply
To be fair, the inaccuracies he described were minor (and have been fixed), and he concluded by saying that the article was a fair representation of him, including both criticism and counterpoints. InsertCleverPhraseHere20:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment: the inaccuracies mentioned by Benjamin were: a) year of birth and b) the year Sargon became active on Youtube. Both have been fixed. For the rest, mr. Benjamin said, in the description of his video: “And...it's not bad. Way better than the GamerGate one,” and in the vid itself: “There is nothing I object to,(4:49)” I fail to grasp how this could be “an indication that the sourcing does not exist to do justice to the topic.”
Jeff5102 (
talk)
08:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep – Clearly notable per N, being a known public figure with millions of views and news mentions. Although I can already see the wave after wave of inevitable edit-warring... --
Director(
talk)15:43, 23 March 2017 (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.