Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gladstone (comedian)

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. seems to be weak keeps, but that is okay, certainly can revisit at a later point in time. Cirt (talk) 00:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gladstone (comedian)

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

Non-notable comedian, supposedly only performing for two years. Does not meet WP:BIO or WP:ENTERTAINER. Warrah (talk) 02:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to have quite an impressive number of online contributions for multiple humor websites, not to mention his contributions to Comedy Central. I'd vote a weak keep.Cuindless (talk) 05:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Web published since at least 2006. HBN increasing in popularity due to connection with Cracked and contract has just renewed for a full season. Would argue for "significant 'cult' following" as per WP:ENTERTAINER #2. Sainge.spin (talk) 07:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC) Edit: I am a contributing author, at this point possibly the primary author. Sainge.spin (talk) 07:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Humor writer for Comedy Central and Cracked, also does viral web videos under the name Hate By Numbers, that frequently appear on DIGG's mainpage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Char boy (talk • contribs) 16:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should not be deleted. He has quite a following thanks to HBN and has written for Comedy Central's website a few times as well. 74.212.38.129 (talk) 20:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this article should be kept. He's only going to get more popular anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevets01 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally Gladstone qualifies ast WP:AUTHOR under the clause stating "[t]he person has created ... a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work". HBN is about to enter it's third season, just as the popular web series The Guild has. Its combined episodes have been viewed over a million times. Perhaps the article could be edited to be a "Hate By Numbers" page or reworked to better meet biographic requirements, but deletion seems to be overboard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.96.190 (talk) 03:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has quite a wealth of published materials, is read and viewed on a relatively ritual basis, and finds himself located atop the charts of Digg usually at least once per week. His presence is felt with his influence on Cracked.com, a site whose popularity has greatly increased in thanks to his web series HBN. Has nowhere to go but up (figuratively speaking, he could technically go down) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.23.118 (talk) 06:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're thinking of deleting Gladstone's page? Carrot Top has a wiki page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrot_top). I ask you, what has he ever contributed to anything? Besides an increase in support for mandatory sterilisation. Gladstone is a wonderful contributor to the world of comedy writing and I suggest you reconsider. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.90.127 (talk) 05:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While earliest Hate By Numbers episodes averaged 100,000 views total, Season 3 premier (Nov 16) topped 100,000 views in about 15 hours. Now one of the most anticipated & popular series on Cracked and re-posted on many other websites. (primary author) Sainge.spin (talk) 05:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved article to Gladstone (humorist, writer) to more accurately reflect scope of Gladstone's work. Would prefer ultimately to move to "Gladstone," but page is in exists as redirect-- awaiting consensus on AFD. (primary author) Sainge.spin (talk) 07:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very Weak keep. I'm ignoring the rules a bit, but the credentials seem valid. I'm just not seeing the WP:RS though - lots of primary stuff, but nothing much in secondary. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with option to revisit. I've been on the fence about this one. I share Dennis's concern about the lack of secondary sources. I think the best thing for this article is to continue to work on it. Let's see where it is in six months or a year. If there are secondary sources, then no problem. If it's deteriorated with the addition of fancruft but no reliable sources, then back to AfD. —C.Fred (talk) 01:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Appears to be put together half-way decently. With cleanup, could be better. Carter | Talk to me 05:36, 21 November 2009 (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.