52:. I almost closed this as Delete, I admit. This has to be right on the edges of notability, but a number of sources - whether they be high quality is another question - have been raised that argue against BIO1E. The question of promotionalism can be fixed by editing; AfD is not cleanup. If someone wants to take this one to DRV, be my guest, you don't need to inform me first (though drop me note that you've done it).
566:
convincing since they are all trivial and unconvincing. As such is common, this actually then contains the blatant named mentions of other people, presumably to flash "substance" that is actually non-existent. The Keep votes above are simply not substantiating themselves, either now or then, and thus are presumed to not be challenging the listed concerns now.
317:, I created the page, so it's not advertising. That was the sole criterion for deletion, however as someone mentioned sources, here's just a few. It's significant that Rolling Stone and Billboard have both thought his impression of David Bowie is the real thing, and Billboard STILL has his version of My Way on their site as though it's the real Bowie.
747:
notability from well known figures that the subject impersonated. (This is very typical of articles of marginal notability as they need to "prop up" their topics). This sentence does not even make sense: "Famous for impersonating rock and pop legends such as The
Beatles, David Bowie, The Bee Gees and
917:
Sorry, but the assertion that the article exists solely to promote the subject is incorrect. I created the article and have no interest in promoting the subject whatsoever. I am interested in making
Knowledge better. I have no connection with the subject and am not a 'fan'. I won't deny that I enjoy
798:
I've never claimed any "good cleanup work on the article", just a few minutes basic tidying up and adding sources. There's no reason why all the other "promotional language" can also be dumped out. This article should stay or go based on whether or not Riks is notable and there are sources to show
753:
The subject demonstrates no notability or significance and accepting such advertorial content is not in the best interest of the project. Furthermore, volunteer editors' time would be wasted in maintaining neutrality of this article. Knowledge aims to an academic standard, and this pages falls too
874:
shows there's been no actual convincing changes of alleviating the PR concerns at all, since not only have the sourcing concerns not changed, the information has not either. There's certainly enough outweighing here to suggest this is by far best deleted because of all these concerns, and we once
933:
figure, who is mentioned just in a couple of specialist academic journals or history books, and compare that individual with Riks, whose videos have received literally millions of views on YouTube. And I think who really is the most "notable" of these? OK, so Riks has not been interviewed by say
932:
Likewise, I personally think Riks is quite talented, but have no connection or interest in promotion whatsoever. "Notability" is rather nebulous concept, isn't it, and I might admit that Riks was "borderline". But then I come across some tiny stub article on some obscure academic or historical
565:
by all means as nothing here is actually coming close to independent notability, substance and the convincing improvements this would seriously need, there's nothing here but advertising what there is to know about his career, with quite noticeable focus of it; the sources then are not at all
866:- No amount of improving is going to fix and better something that is PR and that alone, the fact the user who started this only focused with this, and focused with it quite passionately and closely, suggests that's exactly what the thoughts of this article were. Comparing
210:, pending more references. The long list of notable people that he impersonates does not make him notable. None of his YouTube videos have gone "viral", as far as I know. But I'd be surprised if there isn't more general support for his notability from mainstream sources.
875:
again have to stop kidding ourselves about compromising at all about PR lest we become a PR webhost, which is what PR agents plan and want. The Keep vote are not actually acknowledging this or then substantiating themselves because of the stated concerns.
460:
yourself? Your arguments suggest article trimming, not article deletion, is required. In fact, I've just spent two minutes trimming and tidying some of it to save you the trouble. The essential question here must be notability, supported by
418:
Riks' expertise, inventiveness and creativity, has helped build a huge internet following, attracting more than 60 million hits and 70,000 subscribers, releasing his material on social media websites including YouTube and
918:
some of the subject's content but I am by no means invested in the career of the person concerned. I am however invested in making
Knowledge better, and the subject is one which is popular/notable enough for inclusion.
627:
in 1988, told The
Chronicle: “OK, well, Billboard, Rolling Stone Magazine, The NME and many more are all using my video thinking it’s Mr Bowie. Now whether it's being used in the new Bowie BBC documentary, I’m not too
161:
723:
are among his fan's favorites. Riks recently produced a viral series of "Misheard Lyric" videos on YouTube that continue to grow in views. Riks's videos reach over 7.5 million people on
Facebook monthly.
247:
958:. Like some of the other commenters, I'm not impressed by the claim that we have acceptable sourcing here for a standalone article. This "15 minutes of fame" stuff here - or in policy terms,
515:, the event would warrant the article, and it clearly doesn't. (And this is also set out above. At this point it appears you're arguing without having read the above objections.) -
493:
Yes, I did read them. And the problem is that he doesn't enough of have them yet? Or are you saying that all of the sources added since the RfD was first opened count for nothing?
272:
114:
830:
155:
333:
285:
260:
615:
330:
276:
251:
603:
1005:
660:
642:
327:
121:
699:
In 2009 Riks became the UK's #1 Most watched and
Subscribed Comedian on YouTube. Famous for impersonating rock and pop legends such as
321:
358:
for people famous for only a single event, even if that can be shown to constitute being "famous" (first I'd heard of him). Per
87:
82:
17:
324:
91:
176:
977:
143:
74:
300:, unless RSes show up in convincing numbers. Google and GNews has one local paper story and lots of passing mentions -
739:; it exists solely to promote the subject. The language of "huge following"; "most watched"; "famous for" it typical
422:
Stevie's Fan base is worldwide - burgeoning in the UK And US - and includes a large number of celebrities including:
382:
362:, "The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person." Is an article on the event likely? No -
1046:
1000:
923:
837:
articles through copyediting alone. There will be nothing left if such promotionally sourced content is removed:
637:
597:
342:
40:
944:
903:
888:
804:
654:
579:
541:
498:
470:
215:
437:
This is strictly advertorial, with no indications of notability or significance. The article also attempts to
606:) provide significant coverage of the subject. They discuss his biographical background and demonstrate that
137:
520:
484:
367:
305:
232:
1042:
846:
759:
450:
393:
133:
36:
1025:
948:
927:
907:
893:
850:
808:
781:
763:
677:
584:
545:
524:
502:
488:
474:
397:
371:
346:
309:
289:
264:
236:
219:
201:
56:
965:
919:
593:
338:
197:
53:
940:
935:
899:
876:
800:
650:
567:
537:
494:
466:
211:
183:
169:
1017:
773:
669:
744:
740:
516:
480:
438:
363:
301:
228:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1041:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1021:
973:
939:, but he has had reasonable exposure on local press and television over a number of years.
842:
777:
755:
673:
479:
If you read the deletion arguments above, the key problem is it doesn't have those either -
446:
78:
649:
event referred to above occurred in 2016, eight years after the BBC article was published.
1013:
1009:
959:
834:
719:
646:
611:
607:
512:
508:
359:
193:
1012:
occurred in 2016, eight years after the BBC article was published. With multiple events,
149:
423:
736:
664:
457:
442:
408:
355:
224:
748:
Freddie
Mercury are among his fan's favorites"; hence my earlier suggestion for TNT.
713:
692:" -- I honestly don't see that the article has improved much. With content such as:
462:
898:
I'm not "compromising about PR", I'm looking for sources to establish notability.
108:
969:
707:
701:
663:) has done significant good work in cleaning up the article, demonstrating that
427:
70:
62:
990:
623:
441:
notability from better known entities. So delete with a good doze of
1035:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
768:
The article can still be cleaned up more. But
Martinevans123's
754:
far short of it to add value to the encyclopedia at this time.
995:
632:
385:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
962:. I don't see that we have material to support a biography.
871:
248:
list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions
743:
in such promotional articles, while the page attempts to
867:
838:
769:
533:
529:
104:
100:
96:
168:
772:
has shown it can be salvaged through normal editing.
391:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
273:
list of United
Kingdom-related deletion discussions
831:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Kampyle (software)
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1049:). No further edits should be made to this page.
690:significant good work in cleaning up the article
411:a promotional platform. The content includes:
182:
8:
271:Note: This debate has been included in the
246:Note: This debate has been included in the
963:
270:
245:
735:...the article is not in compliance with
456:Are you are offering to administer the
833:, I don't find it possible to improve
689:
7:
532:supports the same "single event" as
227:says we need the RSes right there -
507:They count for a single event. Per
621:Stevie, 48, who appeared on ITV’s
24:
1008:. The event referred to as being
770:good cleanup work on the article
445:. 19:24, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
614:are inapplicable. For example,
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
988:Stevie Riks appeared on ITV’s
949:15:30, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
928:15:14, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
908:07:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
894:06:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
851:06:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
809:07:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
782:06:00, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
764:05:54, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
678:05:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
585:04:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
546:23:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
525:23:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
503:22:20, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
489:22:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
475:21:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
398:09:20, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
372:10:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
347:02:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
310:00:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
290:22:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
265:22:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
237:00:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
220:21:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
202:20:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
1:
1026:03:47, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
994:in 1988 and was featured on
356:biography of a living person
57:08:20, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
282:...........................
257:...........................
1066:
1038:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
354:We don't risk having a
1016:cannot be applicable.
630:
592:The sources listed by
619:
936:The Daily Telegraph
631:He was featured on
829:As I commented at
981:
968:comment added by
667:is not necessary.
400:
331:Chester Chronicle
292:
267:
54:Black Kite (talk)
1057:
1040:
891:
886:
582:
577:
396:
390:
388:
386:
281:
256:
187:
186:
172:
124:
112:
94:
34:
1065:
1064:
1060:
1059:
1058:
1056:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1047:deletion review
1036:
920:DavidFarmbrough
889:
877:
839:link to comment
732:
720:Freddie Mercury
594:DavidFarmbrough
580:
568:
401:
392:
381:
379:
339:DavidFarmbrough
277:
252:
129:
120:
85:
69:
66:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1063:
1061:
1052:
1051:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1028:
983:
982:
953:
952:
951:
941:Martinevans123
912:
911:
910:
900:Martinevans123
860:
859:
858:
857:
856:
855:
854:
853:
820:
819:
818:
817:
816:
815:
814:
813:
812:
811:
801:Martinevans123
787:
786:
785:
784:
750:
749:
728:
727:
726:
725:
724:
694:
693:
682:
681:
651:Martinevans123
587:
559:
558:
557:
556:
555:
554:
553:
552:
551:
550:
549:
548:
538:Martinevans123
495:Martinevans123
467:Martinevans123
435:
434:
433:
430:
424:Paul McCartney
420:
413:
412:
389:
378:
377:
376:
375:
374:
328:Liverpool Echo
325:Liverpool Echo
319:
318:
312:
294:
293:
268:
242:
241:
240:
239:
212:Martinevans123
190:
189:
126:
65:
60:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1062:
1050:
1048:
1044:
1039:
1033:
1032:
1027:
1023:
1019:
1015:
1011:
1007:
1003:
1002:
997:
993:
992:
987:
986:
985:
984:
979:
975:
971:
967:
961:
957:
954:
950:
946:
942:
938:
937:
931:
930:
929:
925:
921:
916:
913:
909:
905:
901:
897:
896:
895:
892:
887:
884:
880:
873:
869:
865:
862:
861:
852:
848:
844:
840:
836:
832:
828:
827:
826:
825:
824:
823:
822:
821:
810:
806:
802:
797:
796:
795:
794:
793:
792:
791:
790:
789:
788:
783:
779:
775:
771:
767:
766:
765:
761:
757:
752:
751:
746:
742:
738:
734:
733:
731:
722:
721:
716:
715:
710:
709:
704:
703:
698:
697:
696:
695:
691:
687:
684:
683:
680:
679:
675:
671:
666:
662:
659:
656:
652:
648:
644:
640:
639:
634:
629:
626:
625:
617:
613:
609:
605:
602:
599:
595:
591:
588:
586:
583:
578:
575:
571:
564:
561:
560:
547:
543:
539:
535:
531:
528:
527:
526:
522:
518:
514:
510:
506:
505:
504:
500:
496:
492:
491:
490:
486:
482:
478:
477:
476:
472:
468:
464:
459:
455:
454:
452:
448:
444:
440:
436:
431:
429:
425:
421:
417:
416:
415:
414:
410:
406:
403:
402:
399:
395:
394:North America
387:
384:
373:
369:
365:
361:
357:
353:
352:
351:
350:
349:
348:
344:
340:
336:
335:
332:
329:
326:
323:
316:
313:
311:
307:
303:
299:
296:
295:
291:
287:
283:
280:
274:
269:
266:
262:
258:
255:
249:
244:
243:
238:
234:
230:
226:
223:
222:
221:
217:
213:
209:
206:
205:
204:
203:
199:
195:
185:
181:
178:
175:
171:
167:
163:
160:
157:
154:
151:
148:
145:
142:
139:
135:
132:
131:Find sources:
127:
123:
119:
116:
110:
106:
102:
98:
93:
89:
84:
80:
76:
72:
68:
67:
64:
61:
59:
58:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1037:
1034:
999:
989:
964:— Preceding
955:
934:
914:
882:
878:
863:
729:
718:
714:The Bee Gees
712:
706:
700:
685:
668:
657:
636:
622:
620:
600:
589:
573:
569:
562:
517:David Gerard
481:David Gerard
404:
380:
364:David Gerard
337:
322:Wirral Globe
320:
314:
302:David Gerard
297:
278:
253:
229:David Gerard
207:
192:Advertising
191:
179:
173:
165:
158:
152:
146:
140:
130:
117:
50:no consensus
49:
47:
31:
28:
843:K.e.coffman
756:K.e.coffman
708:David Bowie
702:The Beatles
616:this source
447:K.e.coffman
428:Ringo Starr
156:free images
71:Stevie Riks
63:Stevie Riks
1001:Inside Out
745:WP:INHERIT
741:WP:PEACOCK
730:References
638:Inside Out
439:WP:INHERIT
194:Rathfelder
1043:talk page
991:New Faces
624:New Faces
432:Etc. etc.
419:Facebook.
334:Billboard
37:talk page
1045:or in a
1014:WP:BIO1E
1010:WP:BIO1E
1004:in 2008
978:contribs
966:unsigned
835:WP:PROMO
661:contribs
647:WP:BLP1E
641:in 2008
612:WP:BIO1E
608:WP:BLP1E
604:contribs
513:WP:BIO1E
509:WP:BLP1E
383:Relisted
360:WP:BIO1E
115:View log
39:or in a
915:Comment
864:Comment
686:Comment
618:notes:
162:WP refs
150:scholar
88:protect
83:history
1018:Cunard
970:Xymmax
956:Delete
885:wister
881:wister
799:that.
774:Cunard
737:WP:NOT
670:Cunard
665:WP:TNT
645:. The
576:wister
572:wister
563:Delete
458:WP:TNT
443:WP:TNT
409:WP:NOT
405:Delete
298:Delete
279:1Wiki8
254:1Wiki8
225:WP:BLP
134:Google
92:delete
960:BIO1E
628:sure?
463:WP:RS
275:. --
250:. --
177:JSTOR
138:books
122:Stats
109:views
101:watch
97:links
16:<
1022:talk
1006:here
974:talk
945:talk
924:talk
904:talk
890:talk
872:this
870:and
868:this
847:talk
805:talk
778:talk
760:talk
717:and
688:re "
674:talk
655:talk
643:here
610:and
598:talk
590:Keep
581:talk
542:talk
534:this
530:This
521:talk
511:and
499:talk
485:talk
471:talk
451:talk
407:per
368:talk
343:talk
315:Keep
306:talk
286:talk
261:talk
233:talk
216:talk
208:Keep
198:talk
170:FENS
144:news
105:logs
79:talk
75:edit
998:'s
996:BBC
635:'s
633:BBC
184:TWL
113:– (
1024:)
980:)
976:•
947:)
926:)
906:)
849:)
841:.
807:)
780:)
762:)
711:,
705:,
676:)
544:)
536:?
523:)
501:)
487:)
473:)
465:?
453:)
426:,
370:)
345:)
308:)
288:)
263:)
235:)
218:)
200:)
164:)
107:|
103:|
99:|
95:|
90:|
86:|
81:|
77:|
1020:(
972:(
943:(
922:(
902:(
883:T
879:S
845:(
803:(
776:(
758:(
672:(
658:·
653:(
601:·
596:(
574:T
570:S
540:(
519:(
497:(
483:(
469:(
449:(
366:(
341:(
304:(
284:(
259:(
231:(
214:(
196:(
188:)
180:·
174:·
166:·
159:·
153:·
147:·
141:·
136:(
128:(
125:)
118:·
111:)
73:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.