This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
Though the article was deleted earlier this year (in an AfD at which I !voted to delete), I believe the subject is now notable. There has been significant recent coverage of Thorn's August Shakespeare stream—articles in The Times, Tubefilter and Pajiba are all independent reliable secondary sources (the first being particularly significant). Also new is a full-length Vox review of a video. Taken in addition to coverage of the YouTube channel spanning a number of months (TenEighty Magazine, Forbes, Hyperallergic), this shows the page does not fall afoul of BLP1E and that Thorn meets NPEOPLE.
Additionally, the high quality interviews in the BBC World Business Report and Evening Standard allow for expansion of the article into a substantial amount of content, but they do not count towards notability due to lack of independence. Same goes for the primary sources which follow WP:PRIMARY ("straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source"). — Bilorv (talk) 22:01, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
two out of the three you’ve named as RS are either not independent coverage or not reliable. Praxidicae (talk) 22:51, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I named seven RS that I believe count towards notability. — Bilorv (talk) 06:32, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken speedy deletion as "repost" off as the article is substantially updated since its original deletion. I agree that notability is borderline but not clearly enough in either direction that speedy deletion is appropriate. If this was at AfD I'd probably be voting neutral or weak keep. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:58, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Curious what you'd be keeping it on since there are still no truly independent sources that feature significant in depth coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 23:03, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
G4 most clearly does not apply to a page that looks like this that was deleted when it looked like this, particularly when the re-creator has made sure to prominently point out that Though the article was deleted earlier this year (in an AfD at which I !voted to delete), I believe the subject is now notable. There has been significant recent coverage. @Praxidicae: please be more careful with your G4s in future; AfD is the right place to discuss whether coverage is significant or independent. Note WP:G4's It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version and pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies, both of which applied here. — Bilorv (talk) 06:59, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Contact with Thorn
Just a disclosure to keep everything completely above board: I have emailed Olly Thorn and asked him if he would like to donate any photos for us to use on this page, and asking if there were any errors on this page. He is planning to do the former, and in regards to the latter he noted that he has two older brothers, not three (as an earlier draft correctly said, along with the source [1]); and that the IMDb page ([2]) is of a different person. After independently verifying both details to be true, I've fixed both of those errors in this edit. There are no other edits I have made in connection to contact with Thorn and I will note any future such edits in this section. — Bilorv (talk) 11:05, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's important to add his former surname (Lennard) since quite a lot of material has been written under it. I don't think it should be a problem since the change was done for acting purposes;
while he avoids labels, he's quite vocal about housing as a human right, decriminalization of sex work, freedom of movement. If there's no problem with that (and with it being selfpub -- his twitter and youtube channel) I can start adding a section about it. --Ihaveacatonmydesk (talk) 16:52, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The first point seems like a good idea. I don't agree with the second: he's been vocal about a large number of things over five years of videos and social media usage. Reliable secondary sources are needed to tell us which of his views are the ones that are significant for an encyclopedia to discuss, and to choose ourselves would give undue weight. Currently, they don't say much (so we shouldn't either), just that many of his videos reflect left-wing ideas and that he's discussed Brexit, Bannon and democracy in them. — Bilorv (talk) 17:40, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
