Talk:Frankie MacDonald/Archive 1

Archive 1

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (Frankie MacDonald is a Youtube star with thousands of suscribers.) --99.231.141.118 (talk) 14:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because there are six references including the Toronto Star, The Huffington Post, and the CBC, clearly not a speedy deletion candidate. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 14:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (your reason here) --199.255.220.101 (talk) 14:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Frankie has made a difference in the lives of millions of people.

He overcame all odds and became a very good YouTuber.

Everyone knows his name in Canada.

Everyone.

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because Frankie MacDonald is a celebrity. Sweet Brown and "Ain't Nobody Got Time for That" is a Wikipedia entry. Why can't Frankie be? He is a person of note, local celebrity, and (because of the internet) becoming an internationally-recognized figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.137.29.23 (talk) 14:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Contested deletion

IMO the subject IS noteworthy and a household name in Canada. He deserves to be included in Wikipedia per kelapstick. Just Google Frankie MacDonald. The results should speak for themselves. Regards,  Aloha27 talk  15:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... This gentlemen needs to be solidified into record as being one of the greatest examples of how a person with Aspergers can surpass all odds and take a dream to fruition.

I will tell you this - if Frankie's Wiki is deleted I for one (amongst thousands) will protest. --8.12.250.153 (talk) 15:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Delete

Call me cynical, but I'm naturally a bit suspicious when I see a barrage of sudden support for any topic from a collection of anonymous editors with little or no prior editing history here. At any rate, as the guidelines state, being "famous" or "popular" isn't enough to establish notability. I happen to know the subject of this article personally; he's a janitor at a local shopping mall. Mention THAT in the lead section of the article and see how quickly the article gets yanked. He's not an "amateur weatherman", he's a freakin' janitor. Lots of people make YouTube videos but very, very few achieve the notability for a Wikipedia article. A few mentions in the media don't change the fact that he's just a janitor and not an actual "weather man".

As I said, I see Frankie almost everyday pushing his broom around the Mayflower Mall. I'll probably see him tomorrow. If we're going to start allowing articles for autistic janitors with YouTube channels, I'm finished with the project for good. Caper454 (talk) 16:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

What does his day job have to do with anything? If there was a reliable source that said what his occupation was it would be included (I am going to look). As for the IPs, it would do you a little good to assume good faith, but failing that if had you bothered to look up where they come from you would see that they come from across Canada and the US. Also read the CSD criteria again, speedy deletion has to do with notability. CSD requires a lack of an indication of importance, and multiple third party sources confer an indication of importance. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 17:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

You or I could watch weather reports and then make YouTube videos "predicting" the weather, and neither you or I would be worthy of a wikipedia article either. This is ridiculous. Caper454 (talk) 17:26, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

And btw, kelapstick, the several anonymous IP's supporting your position strike me as an obvious example of either Wikipedia:Meat puppetry or Wikipedia:Canvassing intended to influence the outcome of the discussion, which is regarded as disruptive behaviour. Caper454 (talk) 17:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Because our reports would not have been covered by The Huffington Post, the Toronto Star, or the CBC. As it seems you have not read Wikipedia's general notability guidelines, permit me to explain it for you.

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.

Frankie MacDonald has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (himself). --kelapstick^(bainuu) 17:36, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

3 or 4 mentions in the press are unlikely to be regarded by many as "significant coverage". Please also watch your condescending tone. Caper454 (talk) 17:53, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

It's actually seven third party, reliable sources that are currently in the article.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 17:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Caper if the proposed inclusion of this article is enough to have you retire from the project. You'll be missed. As you'll no doubt notice, I am not an anonymous editor. In fact, I've been around for a few years now. Your outing of Mr. MacDonald's place of work has been noted. Regards,  Aloha27 talk  18:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I am anonymous, yes, but that hardly invalidates my opinion. He has become a celebrity IN SPITE of all that you describe, Caper. That is pretty impressive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.137.31.112 (talk) 18:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

"Contested deletion"

OK y'all, please contest at the AfD, with arguments please. Drmies (talk) 23:36, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2016

Here is a Picture of Frankie MacDonald i took myself for the Wikipedia Frankie MacDonald Page and it looks great and Somebody Add the Picture of Frankie MacDonald on the Frankie MacDonald Wikipedia Page. Frankie1984 (talk) 05:59, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

you haven't attached a picture, or a link to a picture, and the above post is your only edit on that account to date - Arjayay (talk) 09:09, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

If the photo belongs to you, you can upload it here. If you need any help, let me know. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 23:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)I'm not sure, but I think this may have been some kind of spoof. On another note, the edit summary for my last SHOULD have read WP:FART instead of WP;FART. Regards,   Aloha27  talk  00:04, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Alleged spat between Frankie and Cindy Day

There is a small conflict on whether or not to include the so-called spat between Frankie (actually some of Frankie's supporters, Frankie never mentioned this event) and CTV Meteorologist Cindy Day. The one media outlet that covered the story, The Coast is a free publication available at retail outlets in Halifax. The story can be read here.[[1]]

As I see it, the reporter didn't interview Frankie or Cindy, instead relied on facebook, twitter and change.org to source his story. I see it as not reputable.Thoughts?   Aloha27  talk  01:04, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

The writer reported the facts. Stating facts about something that occurred online does not affect reputability. See WP:RS for more info about reliable sources. Also, no one is calling this a 'spat' between the two, except you. That's a bit of a strawman argument. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 02:53, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Strawman argument? Hardly. Again, the writer reported gossip on Facebook, Twitter and change.org. No actual interview was done by the publication with the principals and NO mention was made of the incident by any mainstream media. By definition this is tabloid journalism and as such has no place IMO in this project. Your "warning" me was duly noted and dismissed as laughable. Regards,   Aloha27  talk  03:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

The Coast is not a tabloid. It's a winner of The Canadian Journalism Foundation's Excellence in Journalism Award. http://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/the-canadian-journalism-foundation-announces-halifaxs-the-coast-as-winner-of-the-excellence-in-journalism-award-in-small-media-category-517478421.html T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 03:49, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

This is poorly referenced content about a tempest in a teapot, and one of the references is a blog post (can you believe it?) Including content about an online petition calling for someone to be fired over a triviality is, in my opinion, a violation of our policy on biographies of living people. If someone Googles the person, this crud shows up in an encyclopedia? Totally unfair to her, and I never heard of her until today. It is unworthy of this encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:59, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

And since Day is still on CTV (I just saw her on it yesterday), it seems the change.org petition has had no lasting effect on either person. If something significant comes of it, than there is grounds for inclusion, but as it sits now, it does not. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 11:22, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Podcast mentions

There appears to be no mention of Frankie's many appearances on various podcasts. When an editor attempts to list the podcasts he appears on, someone comes in to protect the page. He had appeared on Drunken Peasants, BaD Radio, Real Good Show and even Bevin and Bean of KROQ and yet not one show had been mentioned. His appearances on radio is how many people have come to know Frankie.--Jcarpro (talk) 20:20, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Please provide links to independent reliable sources that cover these podcasts. And the podcast itself not a suitable reference. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 23:03, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

There's no mention of whatever he's got, the autism or something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:E320:3CD:80AD:56B5:4BB0:8C8C (talk) 15:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes there is. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 09:00, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Notability

This article is about an amateur weatherman that has no credentials or published nothing in the field of meteorology. It is only a list of pseudo achiements, backed-up by articles about his blog and tv apperance. An encyclopedia should only incorporate people notable people, see Wikipedia:Notability.

Pierre cb (talk) 04:19, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Please see your talk page Regards,   Aloha27  talk  12:11, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Just my two cents: the subject of this article is an autistic janitor at a shopping mall. His "notability" is the result of self-produced videos which bring him widespread ridicule. I feel this article accomplishes nothing but to perpetuate that ridicule, which is deplorable. Shame on Wikipedia. SolarFlash (talk) 15:36, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

There is no Wikipedia policy or guideline which prevents articles about people with autism, or who's primary occupation is a janitor. His notability is derived from being the recipient of significant coverage in reliable sources, which are independent of the subject, why he received that coverage is irrelevant. Your belief that this article perpetuates ridicule is just that, your belief. MacDonald is aware of this article, and has posted it on his Facebook page, so he doesn't seem to have an issue with it, so I have no idea why you would have an issue with it. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 14:12, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Just a note @Kelapstick: that User:SolarFlash is the reincarnation of User:Caper454 who said here he would leave Wikipedia if Mr. MacDonald's entry here was kept. As the previous account had lain unused for a couple of years, the new username/account is not considered to be sockpuppetry. Regards,   Aloha27  talk  16:07, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Frankie MacDonald. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160811165337/http://www.frankiemacdonald.ca/ to http://www.frankiemacdonald.ca/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:50, 6 October 2017 (UTC)