Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Campbell (blogger)

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. Insufficient evidence of notability established within the discussion - interesting thoughts for a merge target, Morbidthoughts, but I think it should probably be bundled as part of the DRV you refer to. To be explicit, the participants in this discussion suggesting retention failed to evidence reliable sources sufficient to satisfy WP:N. Fritzpoll (talk) 20:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Scott Campbell (blogger)

Scott Campbell (blogger) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Not yet sufficiently notable teen. See also Nathan Adam. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Delete for same reasons as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Adam, his co-blogger. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Merge to a reopened Net News Daily because the AfD for that article was in April while this prominent article about the website and the boys have popped up. Recommend a deletion review of the website. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep: I'm not sure how anyone can say he's not notable, unless there's some separate criteria for teenagers, which I've never heard of. The Press and Journal piece and the BBC profile seem to establish pretty unassailable notability, and for more than event. — Bdb484 (talk) 02:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Under what category do you think he's notable? WP:GNG says

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content.

The Press & Journal article isn't about him (it's about new nominations for the award) and it doesn't cover him in detail. Neither article gives sufficient information to write an article (where/when was he born? what happened to the online bookshop? and so on).

And I definitely don't see how he would qualify as WP:CREATIVE. So, convince me: what category of notability applies to him, and how? Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 03:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The P&J headline and lead may may technically be about the award, but the article gives Campbell significant coverage; more than half of it is about Campbell, in fact. The BBC piece gives him significant coverage. The Piper & Herald article gives him significant coverage. Again, I'm confused about how we can say that these don't constitute "significant" coverage. I'll concede that they don't include his birthdate, but not that we should delete the article because of it. — Bdb484 (talk) 13:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

See my comment below about why I think the birthdate matters. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 23:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Weak keep Apart from the BT Internet Ranger award in 2006 and the mention on the BBC website, the evidence of notability is far from compelling. Hardly significant coverage, but the BBC is a reliable source and BT probably doesn't hand out awards for nothing. Astronaut (talk) 06:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Also, the article is written by the subject.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 18:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - I just do not see the notability here. - TexasAndroid (talk) 23:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Per the Wikipedia Notability criterion, this article meets nearly all of the General Notability Guidelines. It has significant and reliable coverage from a number of secondary independent sources. The sources are also verifiable, and most of them are significant media outlets. If you could explain further why this fails to meet the Wikipedia notability guidelines, I would be greatly appreciative. --Scottcampb (talk) 23:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)— Scottcampb (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Note to closing admin: Scottcampb (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 23:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• I also would like to request that if the AfD debate concludes to the result that the article should be deleted, that it should be put on hold for the next two weeks. A photographer for The Scotsman (confirmed), as well as a photographer for The Times (confirmed) will be coming to take our pictures. Furthermore, a BBC TV crew will be coming in the next few weeks (date for filming unconfirmed at the moment), as well as a Press Association videographer on June 11th (confirmed). Hopefully that should add even more articles to prove my notability. --Scottcampb (talk) 23:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
• I'm just curious...if the subject is notable, why did he have to create an article about himself? Wouldn't someone else have done it eventually?--Sandor Clegane (talk) 23:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I decided to create it myself, because I thought that I met the notability guidelines. I also think my article is written with a NPOV. --Scottcampb (talk) 23:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Think about it this way: if you look at only published reliable sources (which is what we're supposed to be doing), how old is he? One article described him as 12 years old in 2006, while the other described him as 13 years old in 2009. How do we actually know that these articles are about the same person? That leaves us with one fluffy article (which one doesn't matter), which is far from significant coverage from multiple sources. So no, he does not meet WP:GNG. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 23:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that the Press and Journal article has clearly been very badly worded. I launched an online book shop in the summer of 2007 just after turning 12, meaning that I turned 13 in 2008. I think the 'not the same person' argument is quite ridiculous, as both the Deeside Piper, Press and Journal and BBC articles mention me living in either Scotland or the specific area I live in (I would prefer not to write it on here). No doubt that somebody will find a criticism of it, but I also have a TechCrunch source [here http://uk.techcrunch.com/2009/01/05/if-a-13-year-old-can-launch-a-startup-you-have-no-excuse/]. It is not 'one fluffy article at all', and there is significant coverage from multiple sources, if your petty 'not the same person' argument is not taken into account. --Scottcampb (talk) 00:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Please: you are not your article. I've said nothing negative about you at all. Describing my statements as "petty" and "ridiculous" shows a complete disregard for WP:AGF (not to mention this little ad hominem edit). No, Wikipedia cannot just take your word for it that the P&J got its facts completely wrong (e.g., the year the biz launched, age when the biz launched, etc). That's why WP:RS matters and what's written by a WP:RS will always overrule any given editor's say-so. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry about that; I didn't realise about the WP:AFG guideline. I have reverted my comment on your Editor Review page. However, you are stating that there is only one verifiable article, when I have provided a TechCrunch Article, A BBC Radio 5 Live blog post, and I am about to add a link to the podcast on which I am recorded as being on Radio 5 to the reference list. As well as this, there are references from being on Original 106 and Real Radio. --Scottcampb (talk) 07:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

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.