Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samuel Marcus

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. Stifle (talk) 14:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Marcus

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Inadequately sourced article about a minor actor. I am unable to find reliable sources that discuss the subject in any detail. Fails WP:NACTOR. - Mr X 01:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actor is not a minor. http://www.famousbirthdays.com/people/samuel-marcus.html shows that he is 19 years old as of yesterday. Hoovergroover (talk) 05:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Hoovergroover — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoovergroover (talk • contribs) 01:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator meant minor as in "not major", not minor as in "underage". And famousbirthdays.com is never a reliable source for anything on Wikipedia anyway, so even if this were hinging on age, which again it isn't, that link still wouldn't be relevant at all. Bearcat (talk) 09:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He is extremely recognizable and very well known across the world from appearing on Teens React. The YouTube videos he appears in get over 1 million views each. Here are a few:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGo16GG9qTA (11.765 million views) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWIBXhQrHE4 (2.03 million views) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APMKmiPtYYw (7.331 million views)

As well, you can see him on the Bravo website from starring on The People's Couch.

Also states that he is not a minor in this article: http://www.bravotv.com/the-peoples-couch/photos/the-people-of-peoples-couch/item/10123466 http://www.bravotv.com/the-peoples-couch/season-2/blogs/the-egbers-show-me-the-funny

Here is an interview he did:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQ_iEqQ5Qso

He has also appeared on high profile TV shows such as Criminal Minds and Key & Peele and films like The Bling Ring.

He definitely fits the criteria. Llbb454 (talk) 05:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)llbb454— [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

His work is all blue inked with the exception of a few short films. Hoovergroover (talk) 05:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Hoovergroover[reply]

Whether the works he appeared in are blue or red links is irrelevant to whether a person qualifies for an article or not. Bearcat (talk) 19:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Our inclusion rules for actors do not grant a freebie to every actor who exists, nor to every actor who appeared as a supporting or guest character in a bluelinked production — it's not the claim of "did X, Y and Z" that gets a person into Wikipedia, but the quality of the sourcing you can provide to support the claim that they did X, Y and Z. But as written, this article is relying entirely on primary and unreliable sources, with no evidence provided that he's garnered the level of reliable source coverage necessary to qualify for a Wikipedia article. So no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when it can be sourced properly, but this version in its current state is a delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that I agree with you but I understand your argument. Llbb454 (talk) 04:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)Llbb44|Llb454[reply]

Also, he is a series regular on both The People's Couch and Teens React. Those are neither guest or supporting. Llbb454 (talk) 17:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)Llbb454[reply]

No type of role — extra, guest, supporting, regular, star, doesn't matter — in no type of production — film, TV series, web series, doesn't matter — confers an automatic notability freebie on anybody if reliable source coverage about the person themselves isn't present to support the article. What gets a person over WP:NACTOR is not the claim itself, but the quality of sourcing that can be provided to support the claim. Bearcat (talk) 19:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And so you're saying that the YouTube videos that are done by partners of YouTube and the interviews that are listed as sources are not reliable enough to support the claim?Llbb454 (talk) 19:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)Llbb454[reply]

YouTube videos are never valid sources for anything on Wikipedia, ever. And again, what I said about interviews is that they're acceptable for additional confirmation of facts after the notability has been covered off by sufficient reliable source coverage — but they cannot confer notability if they're the only sources you've got. Bearcat (talk) 20:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the Wikipedia:Reliable source examples page it says this about YouTube videos: "YouTube: YouTube and other video-sharing sites are generally not considered reliable sources because anyone can create or manipulate a video clip and upload without editorial oversight, just as with a self-published website. However, official channels of notable organisations, such as Monty Python's channel, may be acceptable as primary sources if their authenticity can be confirmed, or as a secondary source if they can be trace to a reliable publisher."

The videos listed as primary sources are from the official YouTube channel of the Fine Brothers, proving that the videos of Samuel on Teens React are reliable primary sources. Also, don't forget that he has gone by the name Sam Egber and Samuel Egber in the past. Some of the sources listed are from the past when he used that last name. I say this is a keep. Llbb454 (talk) 07:24, 2 February 2015 (UTC)Llbb454[reply]

Weak Delete. Minor appearances on cable 'reality' shows and bit parts elsewhere; nominally failing WP:ENT at present. Pax 01:38, 11 February 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.