Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dodgerfilms

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. Davewild (talk) 07:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dodgerfilms

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

Non-notable individual with a handful of refs regarding a single event/YouTube video. Article is largely promotional in tone. --Non-Dropframe _talk 04:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. With respect to the nominator, neither assessment is correct. First, this is not a single event: this is two events, within the same month. As yet, I can find no evidence that this has ever occurred before. Meantime, the "handful of refs" includes ESPN, MLB.com, and Sports Illustrated. Second, for the article to be promotional, it would have to be designed to send page viewers offsite for someone's financial gain; this article is matter-of-fact in its presentation of a non-profit (as near as I can tell) YouTube channel and the man behind it—and why, suddenly, he is now notable. That said, I would not be averse to a page move to, say, Bobby Crosby (Dodgerfilms) —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 04:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even though it is technically "two" events, it is a similar event and within a very short period of time. Subjects must pass Wikipedia's specific guidelines for notability. That something possibly never occurred before is not one of them. It does not satisfy the requirement for significant coverage. WP:PROMOTION does not have to be specific to financial gain; it can be to promote a person, belief, movement etc. (although many YouTubers financially benefit from increased views). Moving it to "Bobby Crosby" would not make a difference as it would not pass minimum requirements for biographies. —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimandia, your reasoning is backward; it would be akin to arguing that two lightning strikes would be less notable if two otherwise completely unrelated storms, coming in from completely different directions—say, Phoenix and San Diego

—found your baseball glove in the same spot while you were recording it. A ridiculous analogy, perhaps, but its rarity and, therefore, its notability are compounded, not diluted, by the fact that "it is a similar event and within a very short period of time." That's why ESPN, MLB, Sports Illustrated, et al., found it worthy—and why Wikipedia does, too. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 07:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please take some time to familiarize yourself with Notability Guidelines. That the media considers something worthy to write about is not the equivalent of satisfying Wikipedia's criteria for GNG - "Many events receive coverage in the news and yet are not of historic or lasting importance. News organizations have criteria for content, i.e. news values, that differ from the criteria used by Wikipedia." (WP:EVENTCRIT) Any way you look at it, this does not pass the GNG. Dodgerfilms does not pass as an organization WP:ORG, the guy who runs it does not pass WP:BLP, and the two events do not pass WP:EVENT. While it might be interesting (to some) that someone caught two Dodger homeruns while recording it within a short period of time, interesting is only an opinion. We need significant coverage of the event in reliable sources to back up this claim of notability. There is no indication this will have any lasting significance (WP:LASTING) or receive persistent coverage (WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE). As far as I can see, only one source (MLB) even mentioned the second catch. That's strange - if the second event was some kind of stunning shock that defied the odds, wouldn't there be more coverage of the second event? The coverage should be multiplied for something like that ... ie Man gets hit by lightning (news story in a few sources); same man gets hit by lightning twice in one month (WAY more news stories). Even if you combine all the coverage of both events, it is nowhere near in-depth or significant coverage (WP:DEPTH). This is so weak it is almost a speedy delete. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:24, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've read GNG repeatedly over the last several months; I still believe this passes. LASTING uses phrases like "often considered to be notable" and "likely to be notable", while capping with "This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." The article passes INDEPTH. CONTINUEDCOVERAGE is iffy: "Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event ... are likely not suitable ... However ... That an event occurred recently does not in itself make it non-notable." In short, yes, this pushes the envelope of what is or is not encyclopedic. I believe it is. That said, I'm leaning toward the page move.

—ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 20:12, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Meantime, improvements continue, specifically WRT duration (it's more than those two catches, though they were certainly the catalyst) and reach. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 23:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable event... certainly the article title is ridiculous as it is about a person not a you tube channel. He could possibly be notable for his comic book work but i havent researched him enough. In that case the article should be re-named to his real name and re-written to focus on that aspect. Spanneraol (talk) 03:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On first blush, you may be onto something. I'll keep working on it. (Edit: or not. I'm having a bear of a time finding anything verifiable via secondary sources ...) —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 04:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I suppose this might not qualify for BLP1E since it covers two events, but neither event is very important and this article fails WP:NOTNEWS. Also, while I personally didn't think this article was especially promotional, contrary to what the article creator has claimed above, an article can be promotional in ways that are not related to money. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that this is one event. The only thing that makes this even remotely beyond run of the mill is that he did it twice in a month. So the combination of the two is the one event. Rlendog (talk) 00:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's what makes it extraordinary. I can find no other instance of this ever having happened. Ever. Anywhere. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 01:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that the fact that you can't find any other instance of this happening is because catching home run balls is not a relevant enough event that it even gets reported. This may have happened many times in the past but no one could even be bothered tracking or reporting it. Rlendog (talk) 12:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly a possibility; however, the relative plethora of reports on this one argues against it. (Catching home run balls probably happens virtually daily. Videotaping oneself while doing so, not so much.)

—ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 18:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yea but who cares? Really? Is there any lasting notability to the fact that this guy videotaped himself catching home run balls? Anymore so than any other novelty story that gets brief media attention and then fades away. In a year or two will anyone remember or care about this guy? The article title isnt even about the guy its named after a you tube channel... the channel itself is not the subject of any real coverage anywhere... even in the novelty articles on the guy they just go on to say.. oh by the way he has a you tube channel... so do a million other people all chronicling whatever goofy thing they do. Be serious. Spanneraol (talk) 20:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Yea but who cares?" This same question may or may not have been asked by MLB, the Diamondback's broadcasters, the Dodgers' broadcasters, and reporters and/or editors at ESPN, Sports Illustrated, the Los Angeles Times, the Daily News, the Daily Mail (twice!), et cetera, ad nauseam; all of which decided that enough people care. I presume they were no less serious—and no less whimsical, for that matter—than I. Meantime, as noted above, my choice of article title may not have been the best. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 20:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of things get mentioned in the media but that doesnt make them notable for wikipedia, see WP:NOTNEWS. There is no indepth reporting about Bobby Crosby the person at all.. These were just novelty mentions that he did this oddball thing. I thought maybe his comic book work could be notable but it seems to be such an indy thing that I couldnt find any independent reliable sources that discuss his work in that field, and the film isnt even in production yet and doest meet notability requirements there either. I could maybe support a redirect from his name to the Blatant Comics page, but not from Dodgerfilms. Spanneraol (talk) 20:49, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And, if we judge by the now-overwhelming response favoring this AfD, you are correct. Meantime: may I ask that, in the future, you be a bit more judicious with phrases like "be serious"? In my ongoing effort to improve the encyclopedia, I may occasionally push the envelope, as it were. We learn by doing—and, to that end, I was never not serious. Cheers! —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 21:44, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Videotaping oneself doing something doesn't make it notable. If the video starts getting "Gangnam Style"-like viewing figures on YouTube, that may be a different story, although even then it is more likely that the video would be notable than the person doing the videotaping. Rlendog (talk)

Absolutely correct: "Videotaping oneself doing something doesn't make it notable." What makes it notable is the coverage, from ARI broadcasters, LAD broadcasters, MLB, ESPN, the Los Angeles Times, the New York Daily News, the UK Daily Mail, and Sports Illustrated, et al. Nevertheless, the consensus clearly is against the article, so my argument appears moot. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 20:07, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is trivia. Even if it technically can pass GNG (which I am not convinced it does, since this is essentially BLP1E), this would be a case that I would treat as an exception to the guideline. We have deleted countless minor leaguers who are far more notable than this. And while he may eventually become notable for the film, that film does not meet WP:NFILM at this time, so there is no argument there for including him. Rlendog (talk) 16:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Rlendog (talk) 16:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Rlendog (talk) 16:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per rationales of Wikimandia, Spanneraol and Rlendog. Non-notable baseball fan -- WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTRIVIA all have some impact here. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:55, 29 May 2015 (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.