Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Callaghan (Beefeater)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 delete. ENT arguments appear to be more wishful than based on the meaning of the policy. Spartaz Humbug! 06:05, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bill_Callaghan_(Beefeater)

edit
AfDs for this article:
Bill_Callaghan_(Beefeater) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The page is themed and based from the idea of the person's 'internet fame'. Is this really an accomplishment that deserves a page on Wikipedia? KiloSierraCharlietalk 09:35, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:34, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:34, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:34, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He's not an entertainer, he's a Yeoman Warder who gave a tour, footage of which went viral. This is an encyclopaedia, not a list of people who went viral for something. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:25, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He made a tour and enterntained people, that makes him an entertainer. He went viral because he was good, giving him notability and significant coverage, and becoming an example to others in his field. Emass100 (talk) 21:06, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, at WP:N, there's the phrase "If reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." Exemplo347 (talk) 21:25, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But there was no event, so bringing up WP:ONEEVENT is nonsense. Also, saying that this living entertainer's article should be deleted because he might not appear in the news again goes against WP:CRYSTAL. Emass100 (talk) 21:49, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The "event" is the tour which was posted on Youtube - the only reason the article exists. Can you find any coverage at all about this person that meets Wikipedia's standards, that isn't about that video? There's none. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:54, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so I actually bothered to search for them, and found more recent sources stating that he is now a highly sought-after After Dinner Speaker. Emass100 (talk) 23:04, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please read through WP:RS to see what constitutes a reliable, independent source for Wikipedia's purposes. A profile on his agent's website is not suitable for inclusion - the Biographies of Living Persons policy is quite strict on sourcing & I'll be posting a request at Wikiproject Biography asking an uninvolved editor to check this article's sources. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:13, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and celebrities.
  • Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.
  • Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
  • Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.
The WP:ENTERTAINER guideline does not include After Dinner Speakers, and to use it here is is taking the the guideline a tad too far out of context. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:55, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:ENTERTAINER is a guideline and so common sense is expected. After-dinner speaker and tour guide are multiple roles and both involve an element of comedy. The millions of hits demonstrate the cult following and the press coverage demonstrates some mainstream notability too. Of course, he's not a superstar and so is at the low end of the scale. But he's got a lot more going for him than the thousands of athletes that get a stubby bio for a perfunctory appearance on the field. Chitty (cricketer) sets the bar very low. Andrew D. (talk) 08:50, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I feel he does fit into this category of WP:ENTERTAINER. Even though he is an after-dinner speaker, he's basically a comedian becuase of the comedic styles of his presentation. A lot of people are still following his twitter account, and asking how they can get a tour of the Tower of London with him, showing he still has a cult-like following. Emass100 (talk) 16:52, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Somewhat known "character" referred to on travel programmes and websites. Reasonable that people might wish to look him up and article is factual and adequately sourced. No reason to delete at all unless someone wishes to dig down into the boring weeds of barrack room wiki "debatery". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.70.166 (talk) 14:33, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. The Biographies of Living Persons policy & the General Notability Guidelines aren't "down in the boring weeds" at all. Do you have a policy-based reason for keeping the article? "Common sense" isn't a valid reason, by the way. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:47, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neither is Schreeching "WIKIPEDIA IS AN ENCYCLOPEDIA" a valid reason to delete.Emass100 (talk) 16:52, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's been no screeching. Valid, policy-based reasons for deletion have been given. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:55, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I gave you my reason for keeping the article. Demanding a "policy-based reason" is just a silly example of wiki-weed dwelling at its worst. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.247.29 (talk) 17:56, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, I was trying to help you. As you're clearly a logged-out experienced editor I'll leave you to it. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
His Twitter account still has a large following, and people are still interested in seeing him. The first video that was shown of him was the trigger that made him famous, but his notability goes way beyond that. Emass100 (talk) 18:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
10.7k followers, unverified. Is that really what we class as a large following, when you consider that there are others in the same job as him, who have 1.5k followers? Sure, it's 9k off, but in the general scheme of things, it's fairly close numbers, given what a large following on the internet usually consists of. KiloSierraCharlietalk 19:13, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, it's still a pretty big number, especially for when he became famous 8 years ago. While 3,5 Million views on youtube might seem low loday, remember that there wasn't even 10 people with 1M+ subscribers on youtube at the time. Also, WP:GNG doesn't have a requirement for minimum twitter followers. Emass100 (talk) 20:20, 13 May 2018 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bill_Callaghan_(Beefeater)&oldid=842096648"