Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geriatric1927

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Yuckfoo (talk | contribs) at 20:35, 19 August 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Geriatric1927

It fails WP:BIO. The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. (Multiple similar stories describing a single day's news event only count as one coverage.) only one coverage by Yahoo does not make him notable. Local TV news coverage is cited but unverified. Lonelygirl15 (AfD discussion) was mentioned once by the New York Times but was removed due to failing WP:BIO. --Brian (How am I doing?) 19:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)I edited this to correct the LG15 link</small [reply]

  • Delete, Oh geez, seconded. Completely non-notable. Just a senior citizen with a webcam. Wikipedians, once more into the breach. The battle with the rest of the internet has begun in earnest.Detruncate 19:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commentit was a story on BBC news earlier today. Old m
  • Keep, Maybe not to people across the Atlantic in the US, but here in the UK this chap has been mentioned in several newspapers (hold on while I get a hyperlink to this piece of paper infront of me...), radio broadcasts, and on BBC News at 18:00 14th Aug. (you don't get a time slot on the worlds largest media corporation's News program for being a 'senior citizen with a webcam'). BTW Detruncate, 'Wikipedians VS the internet'? How obnoxious can a single person be? Spud
  • Keep, he is an internet meme now, and enough of one to get non-internet news coverage. Recury 19:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If it can be Verified. Just saying this isn't enough. People said LG15 had all that coverage as well but never provide proof...now her page is gone. Please provide links to Independent, Reliable, Reputable, Non-Trivial, Third-Party sources. For those across the ocean, we can't just take your word he has been on the BBC. It must be verifiable, hence links and all the information previously questioned. I would remind Spud to refrain from personal attacks --Brian (How am I doing?) 19:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just look them up. Recury 20:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment But Recury, they are basically Multiple similar stories describing a single day's news event. They only count as one coverage per WP:BIO. Even the Washington Post article is close to the same as the others: almost to the point I have trouble deciding if it would fall under 'muliple similar stories' or not. --Brian (How am I doing?) 20:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Here are some Independent, Reliable, Reputable, Non-Trivial, Third-Party sources:
      • UK
        • Channel 4 News Channel 4 is a major broadcaster in the UK Alexa Traffic Rank: 585
        • The Guardian The Guardian is one of the major nationwide newspapers in the UK Alex Traffic Rank: 298
        • Reuters UK It is from Reuters, enough said (written in the US) Alexa Traffic Rank: 2,549
      • Elsewhere
        • Washington Post geriatric1927 on the WP website, probably on print too. Alexa Traffic Rank: 202
        • CNET NewsHuge technology website CNET writes about geriatric1927 Alexa Traffic Rank: 81 Spud
  • Comment Spud, while I applaude your effort, The Guardian, the UK Reuters, and the Cnet articles are word-for-word the exact same thing. These count as one single source (reuters news) --Brian (How am I doing?) 20:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Guardian page doesn't appear to be written by Reuters Spud
  • Comment...as is the Channel 4 report.. I don't know how to call the Washington Post article as it's an opinion column --Brian (How am I doing?) 20:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep quoting from BIO: "just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted". I may reconsider if no new news coverage surfaces in the next five days.--Kchase T 20:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - So what if the Guardian, Reuters, and Cnet articles are the same? Any one of them makes him notable, especially the Guardian and Reuters. Also, Spud- I added the links to the page, where they should have been in the first place. --PresN 20:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He's an internet phenomenon like the "Star Wars Kid" (who has a looooong wiki page). Interesting enough to keep and add more information. He already has fans you know...(Mikadoo 03:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete... for now. Too new, it may be just his "15 minutes". If, in two/four/six months, it becomes something that would be important or interesting to know in 100 years, Keep then. Ronabop 05:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Way way too early to tell if he will last the notability distance. So far there are good signs but that is just speculation. My opinion is to wait at least another couple of months before considering this topic notable. Remy B 06:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete recentism - this guy just happens to be the current fad and was reported in the UK press (notably the London Metro) but it's not a notable phenomenon and is only here because it's currently going on. MLA 10:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If you are notable even for 15 minutes you have been or are notable. It's like saying Elvis was notable once but not anymore! I say keep the wiki and if he really does lose popularity over the next few months then delete then. It should not be the other way around - there are way too many geeky idiots with too many self interests who should let authors (like the one who wrote this) get on with it and not serve as just a 'notable' nuisance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Str8hing (talk • contribs)
  • Comment Please refrain from making personal attacks. If something just happens to be a current internet fad, it's not going to be the same as Elvis. Not every emailed in-joke or forum highlight is a notable phenomenon. Wikipedia is systematically biased in favour of these sorts of things, not against them. Also please use sign your comments using four tildes ~~~~. MLA 11:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Featured on GMTV (UK breakfast TV programme) morning of 15th August. Also, can youtube stats count as a 'reliable' source. Over 1 million views of his videos is pretty large, is it not? In addition, the BBC newscast is now featured on youtube (verifiable...) as are reports from major news sources / media outets in Brazil, Germany (Der Speigel) and Holland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.74.33.102 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete Changed to weak keep, see below Srose (talk) 15:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC) - I think this may be a case of recentism... He was featured on a Massachusetts news channel last night, but who's to know if he'll just fade away? I asked myself if he will be remembered in 50 years, and so far, I think that's a big no - other than by friends and family, of course. If he proves that he has staying power or has an impact in some way on youtube, I may switch over to keep, but for now, it's too soon to know. Srose (talk) 13:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Can't see any real reason to delete. Has received a lot of media coverage. These people saying 'will he be remembered in 50 years' and 'recentism' to you I say so what? I find it notable based on it being reported in dozens of papers, on dozens of tv stations and radio stations. Localzuk (talk) 15:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I think something needs to mentioned here. Even if an article in a major newspaper is just a repeat of a Reuters article says something... it should count for something. Why? Because it means a major newspaper decided to use it, meaning the editors of a major paper thought it was somewhat important. I can understand not wanting to count small-town news paper repeats, but if the ohter major outlets carry it, then it is something more. Dave 16:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as Reuters and the Washington post have covered it. Besides, if Emmalina gets an article that survives an AFD, why not this guy? –Andyluciano 17:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I'd like to point out a quote from WP:BIO:
Notability can be determined by:
...
  • A large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following
Sure, youtube does not count as "well-known films or television productions" (which is the rest of that quote), but I'd say that it is verifiable that geriatric1927 has a large fan base and cult following. (His subscriber list and massive number of responses demonstrate that. He is one of the most-subscribed-to users on the site.) –Andyluciano 17:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - QFT above Old m 17:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, he's interesting, has a huge number of subscribers and will continue to provide accounts of his life in future vlog submissions. Those accounts will provide additional material to add to his Wikipedia page. --Jason Huebel— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.115.6.219 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep - I'm usually against having articles on YouTube phenoms, but this guy's different. As BBC reported, he's been viewed by half a million people in just under a week, certainly a strong foundation to a cult following. --Brazucs (TALK | CONTRIBS) 22:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Even if he does fade away and still produces work wat about all the other fads listed on this encyclopedia. He has made an impact and because of that it should be kept.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.191.1.151 (talk • contribs)
  • KEEP Consider the arrogance of people who think this should be removed. He has been mentioned in reputable news organisations around the world. He uploaded his video to youtube, and the response was enormous. That ALONE makes him worthy of inclusion. Aaarrrggh 23:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Although I think it should be Wikified extensively--DethFromAbove 02:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep William Hung still has a Wikipedia entry! Why not Peter. The Internet does not provide chances for cross-generational communication, but Peter has struck a nerve. YouTube users have been moved to tears by what he is doing - this is a phenomena. Watch it! Something important is happening.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.70.212 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep i agree with the person above... if william hung gets one so does geriatric 1927. this guy has been on more than one news chanel and more than one form of news, that qualifies him if u ask me.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.139.56 (talk • contribs)
  • Total thusfar So far its 21/5 in favor of keeping— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.139.56 (talk • contribs)
AfD is not a vote
*Comment - No, I don't think so. Lonelygirl is much different than Geriatric - she's certainly not a fad. --Brazucs (TALK | CONTRIBS) 18:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Fad-y, but he's is receiving quite a bit of coverage. Notable. — TheKMantalk 06:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; This guy is more than a fad, he hss been reported in Australia on various news channels as well. In any case, he has become a phenomenon, a poster of how the internet is connecting all walks of people, and his stories are truly touching, even more so, the way he is taken back by being so well recognized (as the bloke is 79, lost his wife years ago). He's probably the oldest person to become an internet HIT! IMHO, if GOATSE is an entry on wikipedia, geriatric ought to be as well! -- Unleaded— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.73.206 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep; The article should be kept, he has been on the news in several countries across the world. You don't get coverage like that for nothing. If interest in him dies down in a few months, then delete it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.128.201 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep; Reasonable national and international coverage. Encyclopaedias are supposed to be comprehensive - this is the first notable case of youtube autobiography. Blogging is age old - internet memoirs are not.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Womblette (talk • contribs)
  • Keep; Peter is a celebrity. The only criteria for being a celebrity is that they are reknown. Peter is reknown. I'm sure more people have been to Peter's wiki entry than, say, Matt Pinfield's.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.103.1.44 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep for now, mildly notable. Relist at a later date when the hype/craze has died down, possibly under semi-protection to avoid Youtuber's from swarming in.--Andeh 15:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Switched to weak keep per Andypandy. If, as I suspect, the craze does die down, it will be relisted in several weeks or months. I'm going to assume that due to the huge amount of traffic he's getting right now, he might have more than 15 minutes of fame. Also, as a senior citizen making an impact on YouTube, he's definitely unique and may pave the way for a longlasting trend. Srose (talk) 15:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; none of the autobiographical information in the article is verified, it's merely a repetition of geriatric's videos. Phaedress 17:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This guy has been on BBC news, Channel 4 UK, Australian news, and is huge all over the internet. —Mets501 (talk) 18:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Washington Post, CNet, Guardian. What else do you want? 24.31.9.226 19:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (for now). Notable. (IMO we should consider re-AfD-ing in a few months if his notability has declined.) --Billpg 22:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. My overall preference would be for a page of video bloggers. If such a page existed, I would favour listing him there, along with others who are just-a-bit-notable such as Nornna, Emmalina and Renetto. If he sustains his (IMO) high-notability after a few months, the page could then be "promoted" to a whole article. That option isn't on the table right now, so my Keep vote above remains. --Billpg 22:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - What length of time qualifies for notable? Peter has been in the news for weeks now and has millions of views on his historic(if personal) broadcasts. Some entries on Wiki have been added even though the actual event only lasted hours. The only way to decide whether to keep an article or not, is for Wiki to provide explicit requirements or metrics to confirm notability80.192.244.102 23:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC) Stew[reply]
  • Comment. Agree with previous comment. I think this guy is a noteable, not as a celebrity but as an event in Internet evolution, showing how effective these tools are for reaching out to large audiences, and as a first to span the age gap and gain wide acceptance just by talking about life. He should be at least mentioned in a youtube article. xlynx 11:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. This man has just surpassed Brooke Brodack as the most subscribed to individual on YouTube. Furthermore, he has just made a video stating that he is aware of websites that exist with his YouTube handle, but he does not endorse them (they are fan based websites). Finally, in that same video, he acknowledges that the media has reported on him, yet he will not subject himself to traditional media outlets and shall remain exclusively on YouTube. -Shirley Grace 19:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. As already stated, you have a article for Brooke Brodack who was previously the most watched person on the site, why delete this guy if he has surpassed her. If you delete him, then DELETE Brooke Brodack as well!! Raerth 23:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/button_sig.png[reply]

Your signature with timestamp

  • Comment - I think we've reached consensus.--DethFromAbove 23:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE! Do any of you realize why this is up for deletion? This guy does not want fame; he doesn't want his phone conversations with the press recorded without his permission, he was not want his privacy invaded. The people saying "Keep" are just saying that because "he's incredibly popular"; they completely lack the knowledge of this situation; they're only making this worse. Gah, what's wrong with you people? You haven't reached a consensus! This is horrible! --Zaita 00:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC) (P.S... sorry for all the italics, but it's hard to express myself with the smilies I've become to accustomed to using)[reply]
    • It's just a question of covering notable and verifiable information. It would be worthwhile to be particularly strict about it in this case, sure, but deletion on these grounds shouldn't be considered. Many people are famous who don't want to be, and we still cover them. Everyking 11:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and cleanup At the moment, he's a notable internet meme, though his hits have fallen off somewhat over the past few days. --Madchester 05:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEPwith half a million hits on youtube, he is notable and many people like me, might hear about him from the news and would want to know about him in more detail and quickly from wikipedia. Since I found many interesting information on "Salam Pax" in wikipedia, I've felt that the main advantage to wikipedia is that it is up to date and doesn't only cover TV celebrities. And since one criteria for notable personalities contains "large fan base" for TV personalities, I don't understand how TV personalities would be more important than You tube personalities. And finally even if he does die away, his importance will always be in his age.
  • KEEPif he doesn't meet the requirements for an autobiography, I think the 'geriatric1927' phenomenon itself should be recorded in wikipedia somewhere, whether as a full article or as a prt of another. This is good enough for now. I read about him in a newspaper coming home on the train, and looked for him on wikipedia when I got home. Surely there is a need then...Tompee 14:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Please sign your comments with ~~~~ - otherwise your comment is far more likely to be ignored in the final decision. Remy B 13:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEPIt's one thing to keep his name/phone/address private, but this is not in the article. However the article might be modified to describe this issue
  • KeepWithin a week, he has become the most subscribed-to video uploader on youtube, as the article says. My suggestion is simply to keep the article up for now. He has had millions of views, and some of those people may be looking for some background information about how an unknown retired person became the number one youtube contributor. theAnarch 1:18am 19 August 2006
  • KEEP A definate keep, G1927 is now a 'household name' in online circles. He's been reported globally, and his has been an impact - that may prove critical to the future successes of YouTube. Something, which could well have a lasting impact. This article, is relevant indeed.
  • keep please does not fail bio guideline geriatric1927 has major cult following on and off youtube plus major press coverage Yuckfoo 20:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Geriatric1927&oldid=70641555"