Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Surveillance Camera Man

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. Sandstein 10:02, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Surveillance Camera Man

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

Delete, I'm not confident this man passes the notability guideline. He does have two articles to his credit and he is a youtube personality but I'm not convinced this is enough to meet substantial coverage and I'm opening a discussion regarding it. from one of the two sources itself "Also, there’s no way to identify this nameless filmmaker to file a complaint. " Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:36, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable local creep (or group of creeps). --Orange Mike | Talk 02:57, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. A line or two under surveillance or surveillance camera sems appropriate, not an entire WP entry. -SetagayaJ (talk) 06:11, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would actually think he shouldn't be mentioned there; I'm not sure SCM is a significant enough aspect of that subject to warrant mention. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 09:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:39, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:39, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – There's coverage in a few reliable sources, including plenty of verifiable information to write about the subject. Obviously I think there's enough for inclusion per WP:GNG or I wouldn't have written the article, but as a good deletionist myself, I can see both sides of the question. However, his anonymity is of course totally irrelevant; I'm not sure what Hell in a Bucket's point was in noting that. It shouldn't be considered here. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 09:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BLP concerns mostly is what I was inferring and the fact when I think about it how can you be notable when no one knows who you are? Isn't it also possible this is more then one person? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:47, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

how can you be notable when no one knows who you are?—I don't understand this question. Banksy is an example of a notable anonymous subject, if that helps you. What does anonymity have to do with notability? Wrt BLP, can you please elaborate? What is your concern? ErikHaugen (talk |

contribs) 18:09, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We are writing about a survelliance camera man that may or my not be one person. How can we accurately write an article about a person in that situation? it may just end up like a tabloid article. I'm sorry I am on edge with this article as to keeping or deleting because it is right on the thresh-hold of keeping too. I believe deletionist's (I am one too) are very good at that sort of brinksmanship but it just barely falls outside my ideas of a keepable article at this point. The User Formerly Known as Hell In A Bucket (talk) 11:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Banksy could be multiple people, too! This question simply has nothing to do with whether to delete the article or not. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is actually misclassified as a biography about a person, it's really about a YouTube video series. Needs more than a couple local sources, and something concerning greater social significance of the videos, that sets it apart from every other youtube video series. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 09:15, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think these articles speak to these concerns somewhat (although I don't think GNG sets the wall above "local sources"):
- A posting in the Internet Monitor (from the Berkman Center for Internet & Society) about public surveillance: “Surveillance Camera Man” Draws Ire, Provokes Questions About Recording in Public
- An article by Cory Doctorow on Boing Boing: Surveillance Camera Man wants to know why we accept CCTVs but not a creepy guy with a camcorder
There are many others of this nature, these are the most "heavyweight" that I've found so far. This isn't the most significant subject on the controversy presented by mass surveillance by a long shot, but I think I've demonstrated here that it has gained enough notoriety to warrant inclusion as a standalone article, and certainly that it has received plenty of non-local attention. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 07:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've added a couple more sources to the article and noted the Cory Doctorow post here, all of which I think help establish this subject's notability. I'd appreciate it if those who expressed a "delete" opinion based on notability grounds would indicate whether or not these new sources change the picture at all. Thank you, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Harvard source is a blog, and with blogs we also look at who wrote it, and in this case it was written by a summer intern, so I discounted it as a reliable source (no disrespect to summer interns). Cory Doctorow is a little better but BoingBoing is so prolific on every piece of internet trivia it's hard to see it as very reliable indicator of notability, BB borders on the internet geek version of a tabloid. Maybe others will disagree but I didn't give it much weight. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, those aren't particularly "reliable" as in "WP:RS", but I think they demonstrate some "social significance of the videos". There's also a Yahoo News article about it, which is RS and addresses your other point about "more than a couple local sources" (not that GNG has anything to do with local vs. non-local). ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At first, I thought that there was just enough coverage of this topic to put it on the keep/delete borderline, but looking more carefully at the sources I decided "no, it is well to the delete side of the border". Yes, there is some coverage of him, but not a lot, and most of it is in sources that are unreliable, parochial, or in other ways not significant. The Yahoo News item is the nearest there is to a significant source, but that alone falls well below the level needed to indicate notability. We have someone who has been doing rather trivial things which have received a few mentions in a few places, most of which are not reliable sources, and that's all. (When even the one and only person arguing to keep (the author of the article) admits Yeah, those aren't particularly "reliable" as in "WP:RS", it is clear that the "keep" campaign is on weak ground.) JamesBWatson (talk) 12:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, the not "particularly 'reliable'" ones I was talking about are the blog entries. I think the rest are, and I don't think there's much question about that. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:53, 4 December 2013 (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.