|This is a Wikipedia user page.|
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original page is located at
|Curb Safe Charmer|
|— Wikipedian ♂ —|
|Current time||02:28 BST|
|Family and friends|
|Joined||15 February 2007|
|First edit||March 25, 2007|
|New page reviewer||16 August 2017|
Hi, I am Curb Safe Charmer. My username is an anagram, in case you're wondering!
Organising information has been an interest of mine since I was eight years old when I volunteered in my primary school's library, helping make sure all the books were in the right order according to the Dewey Decimal Classification system.
As a boy I enjoyed the original Batman black-and-white TV series filmed in the 1960s. In particular I was fascinated by the Batcomputer. Batman could ask it anything, and a few moments later it would spit out the answer on a piece of paper. How did the computer 'know' all of that information? I guessed that at some point, a person must have fed the computer with information, some how. I didn't know anyone who did that for a job but it seemed like a really interesting thing to do. I gave up plans to be a doctor when I grew up, and instead wanted to be someone who inputted and organised the knowledge in a big computer system.
It is not surprising that as an adult I spend time here, helping to build and curate the world's largest online encyclopedia.
What I do hereEdit
Wikipedia is 99% run by volunteers. I benefit a great deal from Wikipedia and feel I have something to offer in return. My main area of volunteering is Articles for creation where I help sift through new articles and consider whether or not they should be added to Wikipedia, based on my knowledge of the project's policies and guidelines.
Unfortunately, some people try to use Wikipedia as free advertising for themselves, their business, organisation or cause. It is not always easy to tell what is promotion and therefore not permitted, and what is acceptable. Some editors go to great lengths to dress up their promo article as being encyclopaedic. The references they give may be to news articles that are substantially based on a press release, for example. So far I have saved a couple of thousand inappropriate articles from being added to Wikipedia.
At the same time, and this is a part of the work that I really like, even though strictly it is not part of the Articles for Creation role, is when I have come across a few articles which have real potential but needed some help, and I have worked with the author to improve their draft so that it is accepted into Wikipedia. The best buzz is from a couple of articles that I've helped with reaching 'Good Article' status.
When I come across an article that at first glance looks like it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, I will often set about editing it, such as running ReFill, trimming citations, removing spurious content and tagging issues such as citations that fail verification. Once the article is a bit more concise and readable, if it still looks like there aren't three good sources providing significant coverage then I'll go ahead and tag it for speedy deletion, propose it for deletion or nominate it for deletion. Hopefully the work I've put in will make it much easier for other editors to carry out their review and quickly come to the same conclusion. This process does result in a lot of my edits (about 30%) being deleted, though.
Articles for CreationEdit
YouTube - citing the number of subscribers a channel has, or the number of views that a video has hadEdit
Background to my involvementEdit
A page I have contributed to and have in my watchlist is List of people from Jersey. On numerous occasions, anonymous editors have added two YouTube personalities to the list, however as neither had a Wikipedia article about them they did not qualify for inclusion in the list, and the edits were reverted. This happened frequently enough that the page needed to be protected. Since then, a Wikipedia article about one of the YouTubers, Chris Dixon, was created. This then qualified him for inclusion in the list and he was duly added. I helped clean up the article, which had original research regularly added to it by fans. I tried to find more reliable sources about him, but eventually the Chris Dixon article was nominated for deletion and the discussion resulted in an outcome of 'delete'.
What's the issue?Edit
Clearly there have been many articles about YouTubers proposed for deletion. If, as it seems, there is a recurring issue with editors arguing that a subject is notable because of their number of YouTube subscribers or the number of times their videos have been viewed, maybe there's a need for some specific guidance on the subject in the form of an essay or guideline? I am collecting precedent here regarding to what extent the number of subscribers that a YouTuber has can help demonstrate notability. If there's something useful I've missed, or if you'd like to comment about my suggestion, please let me know via my talk page.
WP:N says that "A topic is presumed to merit an article if ... it meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline" one of which is WP:ENT. However, in practice, editors involved in deletion debates seem to consider that a YouTuber needs to meet *both* WP:GNG *and* WP:ENT. At the root of this appears to be that the subscriber count on the subject's YouTube channel is considered a primary source and is also subject to change (there's nothing to guarantee that the x million subscribers might all suddenly unsubscribe, though that's perhaps a bit far-fetched). So editors like to see the subscriber count mentioned by a secondary source, which comes with the advantage of being a point-in-time record of that count.
I started an essay on the subject here on my user page, but have now moved it to Wikipedia:WikiProject YouTube/Notability.
Suggested way forwardEdit
WP:PEOPLEOUTCOMES could be updated to reflect the common outcomes for AfD discussions around Internet celebrities, or specifically YouTube celebrities.