Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Melikdjanian

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 keep. per sources by Schmidt which still need to be incorporated into the article. v/r - TP 19:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Melikdjanian

Alan Melikdjanian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable–main claim to fame seems to be he makes YouTube videos as an unpaid hobby Epipelagic (talk) 05:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And what would Shane Dawson's, or Amy Walker's claim to fame be? Kingofthesalads (talk) 19:59, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, to the first user, the first time I read your comment it ended with "...as a hobby." Since then, it has been changed to read "... as an 'unpaid' hobby. I am well aware that Shane Dawson is paid for his videos, and you have changed your first statement so that my second one would sound ignorant as I am aware that Melikdjanian is not paid for his videos (unless you count his recent DVD, which is available on his website). Secondly, in the case of Amy Walker, she may be an aspiring actress but her only "actress" credit on her IMDb profile (a very reliable website, if I might add) is for an obscure short film. Her Youtube channel has over 34.5K subscribers and 93 videos, whereas Alan Melikdjanian's Youtube channel has over 23.5K subscribers and 15 videos.

I would also like to mention that Alan Melikdjanian is a real filmmaker, whose resume 'is' available on IMDb, and Amy Walker is an aspiring, self-professed (according to her Youtube description): actress, writer, singer, director, teacher & artist. Amy Walker is little more than a gifted accent mimic. I am sorry for my long post, but I wanted to put this issue to rest. Thank you. Kingofthesalads (talk) 22:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Have a read of WP:RS again, particularly the bit where it says: "self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated, including the Internet Movie Database, Cracked.com, CBDB.com, and so forth." Yunshui (talk) 10:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I believe I already mentioned that OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Amy Walker's notability or lack thereof is utterly irrelevant to this discussion. Please address the topic at hand. Yunshui (talk) 10:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, firstly - the Internet Movie Database 'is' reliable, but, as you say, I will address the topic at hand. Melikdjanian is, first and foremost, a filmmaker, with a full body of work, who has gained recognition for the few Youtube videos that he has by skeptics all over the world (such as James Randi, Phil Plait, Richard Saunders, etc,) and I feel that he is worthy of an article. I am sorry for drawing comparisons between another article, and it is your privilege to downgrade me.Kingofthesalads (talk) 20:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The argument I was trying to make between Amy Walker and Melikdjanian is that Walker doesn't have a full online resume and Melikdjanian does. I personally believe that this article has been nominated for deletion purely because Melikdjanian is an independent filmmaker. I have never claimed that a person such as Shane Dawson matches up in any way to Melikdjanian.

Is it a written policy that someone deserving of a Wikipedia article must, in some way, be as successful as Shane Dawson? No, of course not; because Dawson, no matter how terrible his videos are, has experienced not only internet popularity, but luck. But saying that Melikdjanian has to be of such high caliber of internet popularity (using Dawson as an example, sorry) is an invalid argument. Melikdjanian has gained recognition, and is it true that people with recognition should be included here? Yes. Is it true that filmmakers should be included here? Yes. Melikdjanian may not be in the most well-known circle of filmmakers, but he is talented and his videos have gained recognition. The first argument, by the way, that I tried to make was that Dawson and Walker make Youtube videos for a hobby, too.

I read WP:FILMMAKERS and and one of the criteria was that every filmmaker must have taken some inspiration from another filmmaker, which is absurd. Not every filmmaker draws on another for inspiration. Some have the creativity to think up new ideas for themselves, such as Melikdjanian. He has created a format; a good format that works well for him. Not everyone deserves a Youtube page, but you forget that Melikdjanian doesn't just make Youtube videos, but he also founded a production company, Amelik Productions, LLC, and a website for serious amateur filmmakers. True, the website, filmnet.com, does not feature on Wikipedia, but then, not every website can. And I sincerely apologize that I have gone on this long, but I don not agree with the mindless deletion of this article. I try not to take this kind of bigotry personally, but I have no choice but to in this matter. Kingofthesalads (talk) 04:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've found something else. Melikdjanian participated in the launch of OpenFilm.com Find the reference for that, if you must. Melikdjanian says it himself in one of his podcast interviews, if you can be bothered with that. I honestly feel that people who are not interested in this topic should stay away from it. Only people who can take something from this biography can possibly be happy with the article. It is well-written and informative, after all. If you were interested in this man's cause, you would probably not plaster your opinions over me as if I am a hopeless moron, which I am anything but. I have taken the time to make this article of as high quality as I can: His podcast interviews, websites, references that people can trust, and in the course of, say, two weeks, someone comes along to delete this article. At least try to make it of sufficient quality, and find some distinction in this person, before you blatantly insult it. Keep your opinion to yourself. Look him up if you doubt me. Goodbye, and drive safely. Go annoy someone else.Kingofthesalads (talk) 04:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't much of a discussion, is it? If you type in to Google, or Bing, or Yahoo, or whatever - discussion definition you may be pleasantly surprised. I wouldn't be surprised if you haven't read any of this. I am a newcomer, okay! People shouldn't be tramping on me yet! Now it's your time to speak up. Tell me why this article is bull****, go on...Kingofthesalads (talk) 04:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Last post for now. I am sorry if I have repeated myself, but even if I have, that way you might take what I say into consideration: At least tell me something good about this article, then another, then another.... then balance the positives with the negatives. Well done. Now evaluate. I can tell you, without hesitation, that the positives far outweigh the negatives. You may think that I am speaking utter garbage, but just do it, pleaseKingofthesalads (talk) 04:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply You appear to be labouring under some basic misunderstandings over how Wikipedia works. Please read WP:RS for the policies regarding sources and WP:NOTE for the project's guidelines on notability,. As far as sources go, the principal ones for this article are YouTube and IMDb, neither of which are considered reliable sources by Wikipeida due to the fact that anyone can edit them (by the same rather ironic token, Wikipedia itself is not regarded as a reliable source). As far as notability goes, Melikdjanian has yet to: a)be widely cited by peers and successors; b) become widely known for creating a new concept or technique; c) create a significant or well known work that has been the subject of multiple reviews, a book, or a feature-length film; or d) create work that has won significant critical attention. These are the criteria for notability under WP:FILMMAKER. Since he does not pass any of the these criteria, and does not appear to be covered by any reliable sources, he does not merit inclusion in Wikipedia. Yunshui (talk) 07:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it is my fault. I have tried to create a Wikipedia article of sufficient quality - but I failed. I will try to find someone more notable next time. SaladKing talk 08:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cerejota (talk) 00:25, 15 August 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alan_Melikdjanian&oldid=1174824610"