Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dylan Reichstadt

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. Consensus is to delete. References are not significant enough or reliable enough to meet the criteria for inclusion. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Reichstadt

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)

Contested proposed deletion. ProD reason was: "No evidence that he meets WP:BIO. One local article, one blog article. Not mentioned in the IMDb links given. Google News or Books give no hits either." Article expanded with more sources, but these are either primary sources or (in the case of CNet) reliable, but not about him (not even in passing), but about websites he is also part of. Fram (talk) 07:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no significant coverage to establish notability. Claritas (talk) 07:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - He has had multiple news coverage articles and interviews, and being only at the age of 18 he does seem to be quite notable. paraschadha (talk) 16:00, 3 May 2010

*Keep - I was the Assistant Director on the movie "Trust," in which Dylan Reichstadt appeared as an actor, and I was instrumental in getting him cast in the film -- Awareness of him in the media business as both a unique actor and an artist was enough to bring him to my attention some time ago. glentrotiner (talk) 17:00, 3 May 2010

*Keep - He does have a large following database on Justin.tv, with a high view count. I agree with paraschadha that as an 18 year old this is a great start. puppypuppy21 (talk) 19:45, 3 May 2010

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - The article looks well written and is credible to the sources provided. He looks to be a notable Internet figure. evan248 (talk) 20:15, 4 May 2010

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - I agree with the above, in which Reichstadt has regional press sources confirming notability. The article also has credibility. adjective21 (talk) 21:55, 4 May 2010

Delete. All the sources are some combination of trivial, local coverage, unreliable, or unrelated to the subject of the article. The couple of reliable sources are two year old local news coverage. This seems a pretty clear indication that the subject lacks notability. Also: "well written" and "credible" are not arguments for inclusion. » scoops “ŧäłķ„ 16:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep – I am the manager of Nick Consone, one of Dylan's sponsors. Although as stated above the sources are older, the article content itself is still active. Lifecasting seems to be just starting, and it’s something very interesting that will catch on as a twist off reality TV. Notability should not have to do with the date of an article, but whether the person has the foundation built (his prior coverage). shmoody (talk) 21:15, 5 May 2010

The problem isn't just that the coverage is two years old, it's that it was trivial coverage two years ago. If Mr. Reichstadt is notable, he should have received some kind of significant coverage from reliable sources in the intervening time. If lifecasting is "just starting" (which I'd dispute), then maybe Mr. Reichstadt will receive significant coverage in the future. Perhaps he will receive significant coverage for some other endeavour. At that point an article in Wikipedia will be appropriate. Now, it isn't. » scoops “ŧäłķ„ 05:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep – I took a more in-depth look at cited articles, and would politely disagree with Scoops interpretation of said articles as "trivial". A live interview with an NBC affiliate in the 13th largest media market is far from trivial. Cited local articles, be it print and blog format, I find to also be far from trivial. Using your constructive opinion based upon trivial information, I would find multiple pages on this website to not be of great importance to me and many others, however many others do find such pages to be worthy of inclusion. Further research on his broadcast yields undeniable evidence that Mr. Reichstadt does receive such viewership that a simple calculation resulted in viewership of more than 5,000 people per day. With more than 2.3 million total views since the inception of his lifecast, I cannot find a significant amount of other pages who exceed this impressive number that are currently active on the justin.tv website. In regards to your analysis that "Mr. Reichstadt... should have received some kind of significant coverage... in the intervening time", I would point out that there are many pages here that lack "recent" significant coverage to warrant continued inclusion within the pages of Wikipedia, yet we do not question their notability. I also find that your argument for deletion opens up another door as well. By your own words, I find that had a page for Mr. Reichstadt been created during the time that these articles were written, the possibility exists that we would not even be having this discussion. With that in mind, I believe that Mr. Reichstadt's impressive viewer numbers, combined with established documentation that is, in my opinion, far from trival, be considered to show Mr. Reichstadt as notable and to be included on this site. Jallaopie (talk) 23:35, 6 May 2010

Note: I have blocked the bunch of SPAs above as clear socks, and semi'd this page for a week. Tim Song (talk) 21:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no significant coverage in reliable sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Thank you for agreeing to keep the article active for an additional week. We are aggressively pursing IMDb credits to add to the entry for additional credibility of Mr. Reichstadt. Jrmediapr (talk) 00:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I mentioned this above, but credibility isn't what you need to be going for. You need to be going for notability. Much of the article appears to be credible (believable), but notability is not established. Just look at the references:

1 and 2) Self-published (not reliable, can't establish notability)

3) One sentence in a list (not significant, also doesn't support what it references in the article)

4) Not about the article subject, doesn't refer to him at all (not useful, doesn't support what it references in the article)

5, 6, 7 and 8) Local coverage all within about a month, two years ago (not significant, also 5 and 8 are the same source)

9) Not about the article subject, doesn't refer to him at all (not useful)

10) Blog entry (not independent, not reliable)

11) YouTube video recorded by article subject (not notable)

12, 13 and 14) Forum bio/social networks (not notable or reliable).

If you look at the the reliable sources, we have a teenager who lifecasts and got some local coverage two years ago. I believe that (it's credible), but that doesn't make him notable. Unless the IMDb credits he's missing are significant roles in notable productions, I don't see how they'll establish Mr. Reichstadt's notability. » scoops “5x5„ 15:18, 10 May 2010 (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.