Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stevie Riks

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. I almost closed this as Delete, I admit. This has to be right on the edges of notability, but a number of sources - whether they be high quality is another question - have been raised that argue against BIO1E. The question of promotionalism can be fixed by editing; AfD is not cleanup. If someone wants to take this one to DRV, be my guest, you don't need to inform me first (though drop me note that you've done it). Black Kite (talk) 08:20, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stevie Riks

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

Advertising Rathfelder (talk) 20:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, pending more references. The long list of notable people that he impersonates does not make him notable. None of his YouTube videos have gone "viral", as far as I know. But I'd be surprised if there isn't more general support for his notability from mainstream sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BLP says we need the RSes right there - David Gerard (talk) 00:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 22:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 22:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless RSes show up in convincing numbers. Google and GNews has one local paper story and lots of passing mentions - David Gerard (talk) 00:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I created the page, so it's not advertising. That was the sole criterion for deletion, however as someone mentioned sources, here's just a few. It's significant that Rolling Stone and Billboard have both thought his impression of David Bowie is the real thing, and Billboard STILL has his version of My Way on their site as though it's the real Bowie.

Wirral Globe Liverpool Echo Liverpool Echo Chester Chronicle Billboard

DavidFarmbrough (talk) 02:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- We don't risk having a biography of a living person for people famous for only a single event, even if that can be shown to constitute being "famous" (first I'd heard of him). Per WP:BIO1E, "The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person." Is an article on the event likely? No - David Gerard (talk) 10:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:20, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT a promotional platform. The content includes:

Riks' expertise, inventiveness and creativity, has helped build a huge internet following, attracting more than 60 million hits and 70,000 subscribers, releasing his material on social media websites including YouTube and Facebook.
Stevie's Fan base is worldwide - burgeoning in the UK And US - and includes a large number of celebrities including: Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr
Etc. etc.

This is strictly advertorial, with no indications of notability or significance. The article also attempts to WP:INHERIT notability from better known entities. So delete with a good doze of WP:TNT. 19:24, 28 September 2016 (UTC)K.e.coffman (talk)

Are you are offering to administer the WP:TNT yourself? Your arguments suggest article trimming, not article deletion, is required. In fact, I've just spent two minutes trimming and tidying some of it to save you the trouble. The essential question here must be notability, supported by WP:RS? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the deletion arguments above, the key problem is it doesn't have those either - David Gerard (talk) 22:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did read them. And the problem is that he doesn't enough of have them yet? Or are you saying that all of the sources added since the RfD was first opened count for nothing? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:20, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They count for a single event. Per WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E, the event would warrant the article, and it clearly doesn't. (And this is also set out above. At this point it appears you're arguing without having read the above objections.) - David Gerard (talk) 23:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This supports the same "single event" as this? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by all means as nothing here is actually coming close to independent notability, substance and the convincing improvements this would seriously need, there's nothing here but advertising what there is to know about his career, with quite noticeable focus of it; the sources then are not at all convincing since they are all trivial and unconvincing. As such is common, this actually then contains the blatant named mentions of other people, presumably to flash "substance" that is actually non-existent. The Keep votes above are simply not substantiating themselves, either now or then, and thus are presumed to not be challenging the listed concerns now. SwisterTwister talk 04:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources listed by DavidFarmbrough (talk · contribs) provide significant coverage of the subject. They discuss his biographical background and demonstrate that WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E are inapplicable. For example, this source notes:
Stevie, 48, who appeared on ITV’s New Faces in 1988, told The Chronicle: “OK, well, Billboard, Rolling Stone Magazine, The NME and many more are all using my video thinking it’s Mr Bowie. Now whether it's being used in the new Bowie BBC documentary, I’m not too sure?
He was featured on BBC's Inside Out in 2008 here. The WP:BLP1E event referred to above occurred in 2016, eight years after the BBC article was published. Martinevans123 (talk · contribs) has done significant good work in cleaning up the article, demonstrating that WP:TNT is not necessary.
Cunard (talk) 05:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment re "significant good work in cleaning up the article" -- I honestly don't see that the article has improved much. With content such as:

In 2009 Riks became the UK's #1 Most watched and Subscribed Comedian on YouTube.^{[citation needed]} Famous for impersonating rock and pop legends such as The Beatles, David Bowie, The Bee Gees and Freddie Mercury are among his fan's favorites. Riks recently produced a viral series of "Misheard Lyric" videos on YouTube that continue to grow in views. Riks's videos reach over 7.5 million people on Facebook monthly.

References

...the article is not in compliance with WP:NOT; it exists solely to promote the subject. The language of "huge following"; "most watched"; "famous for" it typical WP:PEACOCK in such promotional articles, while the page attempts to WP:INHERIT notability from well known figures that the subject impersonated. (This is very typical of articles of marginal notability as they need to "prop up" their topics). This sentence does not even make sense: "Famous for impersonating rock and pop legends such as The Beatles, David Bowie, The Bee Gees and Freddie Mercury are among his fan's favorites"; hence my earlier suggestion for TNT.

The subject demonstrates no notability or significance and accepting such advertorial content is not in the best interest of the project. Furthermore, volunteer editors' time would be wasted in maintaining neutrality of this article. Wikipedia aims to an academic standard, and this pages falls too far short of it to add value to the encyclopedia at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:54, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article can still be cleaned up more. But Martinevans123's good cleanup work on the article has shown it can be salvaged through normal editing. Cunard (talk) 06:00, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've never claimed any "good cleanup work on the article", just a few minutes basic tidying up and adding sources. There's no reason why all the other "promotional language" can also be dumped out. This article should stay or go based on whether or not Riks is notable and there are sources to show that. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kampyle (software), I don't find it possible to improve WP:PROMO articles through copyediting alone. There will be nothing left if such promotionally sourced content is removed: link to comment. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No amount of improving is going to fix and better something that is PR and that alone, the fact the user who started this only focused with this, and focused with it quite passionately and closely, suggests that's exactly what the thoughts of this article were. Comparing this and this shows there's been no actual convincing changes of alleviating the PR concerns at all, since not only have the sourcing concerns not changed, the information has not either. There's certainly enough outweighing here to suggest this is by far best deleted because of all these concerns, and we once again have to stop kidding ourselves about compromising at all about PR lest we become a PR webhost, which is what PR agents plan and want. The Keep vote are not actually acknowledging this or then substantiating themselves because of the stated concerns. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not "compromising about PR", I'm looking for sources to establish notability. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry, but the assertion that the article exists solely to promote the subject is incorrect. I created the article and have no interest in promoting the subject whatsoever. I am interested in making Wikipedia better. I have no connection with the subject and am not a 'fan'. I won't deny that I enjoy some of the subject's content but I am by no means invested in the career of the person concerned. I am however invested in making Wikipedia better, and the subject is one which is popular/notable enough for inclusion. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 15:14, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise, I personally think Riks is quite talented, but have no connection or interest in promotion whatsoever. "Notability" is rather nebulous concept, isn't it, and I might admit that Riks was "borderline". But then I come across some tiny stub article on some obscure academic or historical figure, who is mentioned just in a couple of specialist academic journals or history books, and compare that individual with Riks, whose videos have received literally millions of views on YouTube. And I think who really is the most "notable" of these? OK, so Riks has not been interviewed by say The Daily Telegraph, but he has had reasonable exposure on local press and television over a number of years. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:30, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Like some of the other commenters, I'm not impressed by the claim that we have acceptable sourcing here for a standalone article. This "15 minutes of fame" stuff here - or in policy terms, BIO1E. I don't see that we have material to support a biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xymmax (talk • contribs)

Stevie Riks appeared on ITV’s New Faces in 1988 and was featured on BBC's Inside Out in 2008 here. The event referred to as being WP:BIO1E occurred in 2016, eight years after the BBC article was published. With multiple events, WP:BIO1E cannot be applicable. Cunard (talk) 03:47, 10 October 2016 (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.