Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Eisenkop

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. The two main points of argument seem to be: is the coverage in third-party sources significant?; and is his notability if any tied to the single event of his AMA (i.e. does WP:NTEMP apply)? In both cases the weight of the discussion seems to fall on the side in favour of keeping, but not quite heavily enough for me to call it a definite consensus. Olaf Davis (talk) 00:41, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Eisenkop

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.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Although sources exist for this article, at the end of the day, the subject's only notability arises from posting comments to Reddit. While Reddit is itself notable, the subject of this article is not notable aside from posting comments to Reddit. Seems like a failure of WP:BIO Jason Smith (talk) 13:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So what? I can tell you don't like it, but Mashable, Fox News, Time Warner Cable News, the Binghamton University Pipe Dream newspaper, the Daily Dot and the University of Melbourne have all decided that he's notable enough to devote an article specifically to him. That's significant coverage in multiple published reliable sources independent of each other and the subject. That's a clear pass of WP:BIO. Oreo Priest ^talk 13:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (edit conflict) Someone who contributes to Reddit can in principle be as notable as someone who appears on/in radio, TV, print journalism, theater, as a YouTube performer, etc. It's all just media. What matters is whether sources meet WP:GNG. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my reasoning above. Oreo Priest ^talk 14:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Indeed, the coverage of this person seems to meet the criteria for notability. The origin of his notability isn't really relevant. Dbarefoot (talk) 14:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Popularity on a social media website is not grounds for notability. Apart from some popularity among some users on the site, the subject isn't notable in any way, and any semblance for now is temporary and recent. Ithinkicahn (talk) 14:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly his notability is not restricted to the site. If the subject isn't notable, then why did so many independent sources write about him? Oreo Priest ^talk 14:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The claim to notability is made through reliable sources, not on the grounds that he is popular on social media. The sources are hardly recent since they cover a time span of nearly a year. Sam Walton (talk) 16:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:IAR – (1) the sources are thin. With the exception of the Fox piece, everything else is social media, local, or college news sources. (2) Article is an orphan. (3) Being a well-known social media personality is not notable per se and WP:FAME does not necessarily imply notability. I agree with Ithinkicahn that the nature of this particular notability claim is basically rooted in WP:RECENT. Agricola44 (talk) 15:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
It seems to me that when you invoke WP:IAR, what you really mean is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Oreo Priest ^talk 15:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that you are judging my character rather than debating my argument. Agricola44 (talk) 20:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
No character judgment involved. I'm just pointing out that arguing that this article should be deleted even if this means ignoring rules that suggest this article should be kept amounts to saying we should ignore the rules because you don't think it's suitable. That's exactly what WP:IDONTLIKEIT addresses. Oreo Priest ^talk 00:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And yet you persist in lecturing me about how WP:IDONTLIKEIT instead of addressing my arguments. To remind you: (1) the sources consist almost entirely of student newspaper articles, social media, or pieces written by the subject; (2) article is essentially an orphan; (3) the claim of notability in the lede is basically that he is a graduate student and very popular on a social media site, neither of which is notable per se. As I presume we all know, social media popularity is ephemeral, suggesting that a keep would result in an article having a fairly short "shelf-life" rather than an article of lasting significance. For the record, I've never heard of Mr. Eisenkop, nor do I use use/read/contribute to Reddit. Consequently, I have no basis whatsoever to either "like" or "dislike" this article. My argument is strictly substantive rather than emotional. I hope this clarifies matters for you. Agricola44 (talk) 16:20, 21 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Regarding your points, I hadn't responded inline because they have been addressed elsewhere. 1) I don't agree the sources are thin. Fox News + Time Warner Cable are none of what you described above; Mashable and the Daily Dot seem frivolous to you, but I don't agree with your assessment, and the university newspapers are support for these others, not standalone evidence of notability. 2) Being an orphan is no grounds for deletion. 3) You take it as self-evident that nobody can be notable for the reasons he is. Wikipedia has well-established policies ("rules" if you will) about what's notable and isn't. It's true that this case your argument is probably close to WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE as well as WP:IDONTLIKEIT (which need not be your personal opinion on the article's subject). What reason could you have for suggesting we ignore these rules aside from a personal feeling that it shouldn't be here? Of course, you later describe rules which you think work against this article, which is a much more constructive engagement with established consensus than suggesting we should ignore it. Oreo Priest ^talk 17:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, the Fox piece is good, but the rest are essentially indiscriminate (a common reason we don't accept them, as we were just reminded by DGG here in a recent AfD). True that orphanism is not an exclusive reason, but it does help paint a picture that the case for this individual is very weak, at best. Since sources are inadequate for satisfying the usual guidelines, it leaves the question of whether this person is notable per se, i.e. "my reason" as you've called it. There are such people. For example, the chancellor of a university is notable per se under WP guidelines, even if there has never been a single substantive article written about her. However, Eisenkop seems to be a grad student and a social media personality. As I've said, neither of these satisfies notability per se. So, what else is there? Agricola44 (talk) 18:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. Reddit is used by millions of people, and Unidan is very well-liked on the site. Definitely notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.36.222.87 (talk) 16:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Obviously plenty of coverage as shown by the sources used. Sam Walton (talk) 16:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject has garnered significant coverage in reliable sources, and thus passes WP:GNG. It may seem silly to some of us that reliable sources exert the effort to provide this coverage, but Wikipedia is not a popularity contest. Objectively speaking, this fellow meets the definition of encyclopedic notability. Xoloz (talk) 17:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In the General Notability Guidelines the one thing that's I focus on when I think about this is "Significant Coverage". I don't think it has sufficient secondary source coverage to be "Significant". Secondly under "Notability (People)" (BIO), he doesn't fit into any standard category that has additional criteria to consider, and all I'm left to consider is whether he has "made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field". Is "commenter on a popular discussion board of forum" a "field"? The rules seem to indicate that "popularity" is a strictly secondary consideration. I think perhaps someday if he keeps up what he's doing for say 5 to 10 or 20 years he might very well meet notability and 'significant coverage' guidelines, especially if his 'renown' and 'fame' lead him to become a figure across media types. But not yet. Like others, most of the sources are not what I'd consider "good secondary sources". Disclaimer: I'm a Redditor and I originally would have been a proponent of "let's make wikipedia be a list of everything" -- but I've come to accept what Wikipedians have decided upon. I normally tend towards keep, but I don't think it meets Wikipedia's guidelines for notability yet. CraigWyllie (talk) 17:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Meh - The reddit sources are not, in and of themselves, particularly impressive, but there are secondary sources which are specifically about the subject. So this meets the GNG. But WP:PROF is questionable, so I'm not really sure where this leaves us. --N Y Kevin 17:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to satisfying WP:GNG, Unidan satisfies this notability criterion for celebrities: "2. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.". Many of the sources cited in the article confirm his celebrity status and fan following on Reddit. AlmostGrad (talk) 17:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that WP:PROF says: "This guideline is independent from the other subject specific notability guidelines, such as WP:BIO ... it is possible for an academic not to be notable under the provisions of this guideline but to be notable in some other way under one of the other subject specific notability guidelines.". I don't think anyone's arguing he is mainly notable for his work as an academic, so that guideline doesn't really apply here. Oreo Priest ^talk 18:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Multiple reliable, independent, third-party sources have written in detail about the subject, so this subject satisfies WP:GNG. AlmostGrad (talk) 17:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Since this page, and specifically this AFD, is linked to from a highly popular thread on reddit itself, I would be cautious of the balance of viewpoints in the discussion. Ithinkicahn (talk) 19:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: An editor just attempted to remove a !vote and the {{not a ballot}} notice. I have reverted them. All editors are reminded of the discussion guidelines. Do not remove votes you disagree with. --N Y Kevin 20:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I spend some time on Reddit and have gained an appreciation for Unidan's attempts to educate Reddit's masses on biology, but at the end of the day he's just a popular user on a social media site and his influence does not extend beyond that. There are sources, but they are thin, and I don't think they contribute to establishing long term notability, but rather a sort of transient "who's who on one corner of the internet this year." If we're going to start hosting articles on people whose only claim to fame is popularity among users on a social network then I think we're severely diluting our notability guidelines. N^oformation ^Talk 21:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. "Unidan is very well-liked on the site. Definitely notable" – really? I wonder if we might have a more substantive discussion. Some panelists above simply assert notability because there are many sources, which is true, but have not commented on the sources themselves. Many are of the kind that we conventionally assign little to no weight, for example the piece by Rahman is from a campus newspaper (as are some of the others). Social media pieces, like the Mashable write-up by Silverman are similarly not terribly weighty. I would absolutely sign-on if these were from more solid venues (books, edited works, major dailies, established periodicals, or anything such like), but the only source that seems to be more than local and not social media is the Fox piece. Agricola44 (talk) 21:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And DailyDot is basically a tabloid. The occasionally have some decent stories that you can tell are written by people with a journalism background, but most of the time it's clickbait crap. N^oformation ^Talk 21:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not pass WP:Prof. Can he pass WP:GNG as a blogger? My view is no. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, but only just. He may not pass some of the more well-defined guidelines, but remember, they're just that: guidelines. He has had enough mainstream media coverage to definitely justify the noteworthiness necessary for an article. If WP:PROF doesn't include a clause for people who gained notoriety for something not directly causally related to their line of work, perhaps it's WP:PROF that's wrong, and not the article. He passes GNG easily and I reckon that that's more important than passing the more specific guidelines. Sellyme^Talk 12:57, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Starters, being "popular" on reddit doesn't make someone noteworthy. All articles are on the same topic, him being popular on reddit, seems a bit tautological. WP:1E and WP:NOTWHOSWHO also seem to justify flagging this for deletion. Esox id^{talk•contribs} 16:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think either of those arguments makes sense. All of the articles are of course on the same topic, what's wrong with that? That's like complaining that references to the Rolling Stones are only on the topic of them being musicians. Further, neither WP:1E nor WP:NOTWHOSWHO are even relevant here, because there is no event in question. Oreo Priest ^talk 18:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All the articles focus on his "AMA" that hit the front page, which made him a popular user to ask questions. Even the article titles say as much. Binghamton University TA schools Reddit. 'Excited Biologist' Captures Hearts and Minds of Reddit. How u/Unidan became Reddit's go-to science guy. Reddit, Research and the Strange Case of /u/Unidan. This ecologist and amateur comic is the most popular man on Reddit. Binghamton University graduate assistant rises to Reddit fame. The thesis of each article is his AMA and as most state in one way or another, his rise to reddit fame. Those appear to satisfy WP:1E and WP:NOTWHOSWHO. Esox id^{talk•contribs} 00:42, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstood the articles. The thesis of none of the articles is his AMA. Unidan became famous well in advance of the AMA because he answered biology questions all over the website. All of the titles refer to that, not to the AMA. Oreo Priest ^talk 01:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The subject meets WP:BASIC, thus qualifying for an English Wikipedia article. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with the above user that the subject meets WP:BASIC. --unsigned entry from Virginia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.134.181 (talk) 13:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well this is one tough decision. I'm pretty sure this might be closed as no consensus. Every !vote has valid points which is completely agreeable. Well it might not notable in the short-term, but could in the long term, possibly. As Colapeninsula said above, anyone on the internet or media could be notable, in this case we got a subject who posts comments on Reddit and gains popularity from it. The sources in the article are quite reliable, however just because something is listed in a reliable source may not be notable. Things to add are WP:NTEMP states: In particular, if reliable sources cover the 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. For now and for the good, Userfy until it is ready to be published smoothly and in par with the many notability guidelines. --///EuroCarGT 20:58, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The topic satisfies the general notability guideline, as witnessed by references that are cited in the article. That should be the end of the conversation. Melchoir (talk) 04:41, 23 April 2014 (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.