Samwell (entertainer) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD)

Closing admin says there are questions about the notability of the subject of the article, but bases that on the assertions of IP SPAs and gHits, where counter argument of several registered users says there are no notable sources. Too much weight given to unregistered users. SatyrTN ( talk / contribs) 03:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• I woulda' leaned more towards deletion myself, but no consensus is a perfectly valid close there. There really isn't any consensus to do anything with it. So, endorse the lack of consensus close. However, I do like Cari's suggestion right at the end: would a merge to What What (In the Butt) be acceptable? If it isn't, I suggest renominating in a week or two, after editors have some time to work on it more. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 03:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC) reply

As I mentioned to the closing admin, two registered users ( Phrasia and Calebrw) said basically WP:OTHERSTUFF. No other registered users said "Keep". TravellingCari said "Merge". Three registered users said delete. -- SatyrTN ( talk / contribs) 03:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Frankly, I could care less what the numbers are. There isn't really a consensus to delete the page there, given that discussion. Feel free to try again. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 03:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - Satyr misrepresents my close. I based it on none of the factors that he’s stated in this deletion review request, as I’ve already explained to him. I came to my close after giving less weight to the people wishing to delete who said there was little or no coverage in reliable sources. Now, let’s start from the top – Samwell’s notability is established because he appeared in What What (In the Butt). This has been mentioned in numerous reliable sources;
  • mke online discusses the song, make various mentions of samwell appearing in it, and also make a claim that he has just signed for Southern Fried Records.
  • Blogcritics magazine – this is a an interview with the creators of the video, and again makes several references to samwell. The video was also parodied by South Park.
  • BBC online – Samwell was a you tube hero on the BBC Lily Allen and Friends show.
  • AG magazine – he is discussed in relation to the video in this magazine (see the bottom of the page)
  • Atacdus – Here is shown as the artist in the video.
  • RFT News – This is primarily an interview with the video producers, but the start is directly about Samwell, and makes mentions of him throughout.
  • Milwaukee's Daily Magazine – article about Samwell being the artist in the video, and how it was parodied by South Park.
  • In LA Magazine – Paragraph about Samwell, talking about his success on youtube.

After finding these after doing a search before I closed, I hope people understand why I gave the view that there were no reliable sources discussing Samwell less weight. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 03:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Wait - you're saying he's notable because the video is? Notability doesn't inherit. I totally agree the video is notable - it's the actor we're talking about here. None of the sources you've mentioned have significant coverage of the actor, though they all cover the video. -- SatyrTN ( talk / contribs) 03:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC) reply

That's where I disagree with you - I believe the sources do give significant coverage. His claim to notability is through the video - he isn't inherently notable because of it, but the sources show that he actually is notable for it. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 03:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and delete, too much weight given to the views of new and unregistered users. Stifle ( talk) 08:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC) reply
  • How do you possibly come up with that? It wasn't in my reasoning at all. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 08:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Perhaps a better way of saying it would be that I don't agree with your interpretation of the consensus and would have closed myself as delete. Stifle ( talk) 11:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC) reply

      Just curious, Stifle, but for what reason to you believe it should be deleted? It seems most of the discussion revolved around notability, and if he isn't notable enough for his own page WP:BIO1E indicates we should probably give him a short bio on the video's article. I'd think this would be workable for everyone, right? Cheers. lifebaka ++ 20:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC) reply

      • I could go for that. Stifle ( talk) 15:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse and renominate in a few weeks or months I have my doubts on this article, but it seems really POINTY to bring a no-consensus close to deletion review, regardless of which way the proposer thinks it should have gone. DGG ( talk) 18:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close. IP comments are just as valid as anyone else's. Claiming they shouldn't be given the same weight as us registered users simply because they don't have an account flies in the face of the "anyone can edit" idea. This is a proper no-consensus close. -- UsaSatsui ( talk) 18:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm sorry - I just don't see how three single- purpose IP "Keeps" can derail an otherwise solid "Delete". I'm all for "anyone can edit", but not "anyone can derail process". -- SatyrTN ( talk / contribs) 05:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse close. Entirely proper. As Ryan accurately said in his closing statement, the AfD "simply failed to show a consensus to delete." John Z ( talk) 04:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure and suggest renominate it after a few months. It seems pointy to request a review of a no consensus close based on a vision of consensus that can only be supported by ignoring certain elements of the discussion that are within administrator discretion. The close was entirely proper and reasonable. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 17:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Please AGF here. I'm just seriously baffled that the three SPA IP "keeps" can be weighted so as equal to the three registered user "deletes". And that the three IP "ILIKEITs" can be weighted equally with the three registered user "NNs". I'm not bringing this to review because I don't agree with the no consensus, I'm bringing it because I truly believe the AfD was closed incorrectly, and that Ryan (as much as I admire him) did not accurately judge consensus. -- SatyrTN ( talk / contribs) 18:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment Here's a table that may add to the discussion. -- Suntag ☼ 23:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC): reply

• Overturn AfD close. Allow recreation via DRV. - Both Phrasia and Calebrw said keep because he is famous. Fame is not reliable source material and you can't compose a Wikipedia text based article out of a word of mouth social evaluations. The keep arguments carried very little weight. The delete arguments provided search links to show lack of reliable source material and focused on the lack of source material for the article. The delete arguments seemed to outweight the keep arguments. In this DRV. Ryan's posted reliable source material sufficient to allow recreation of the article. -- Suntag ☼ 23:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC) reply