Talk:Sam Denby

Trying to change the name to refer the person rather than the channel. Do I need to delete the page first?

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because I intend to write about the person rather than the channel, who is still to some degree influential (in excess of 1 million followers on YouTube). The reason that this page contains the channel name is that I was originally editing a page about the channel which I felt was going against Wikipedia's policies. I intend to change the name of the page to "Sam Denby" as that is what the page should be about. However as I started with a page that was named after the YouTube name the page regrettably has a name that it should not have. I do not have enough prior experience in Wikipedia articles to know whether a title can be changed or not. If it can be changed I will change it as soon as possible, however if it cannot be changed then I request that it be removed so that I can create a new page which is more in line with Wikipedia's policies. --Overcomplicator (talk) 23:10, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because it is being worked on. The page used to be about an influential channel on YouTube, however I am changing it to be more about the person behind the channel instead, and what is known about him. As he is a significant personality on the platform I feel that a page about him is justified, as long as it doesn't advertise the channel.--Overcomplicator (talk) 23:29, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... a channel with over a million subscribers is worth a wikipedia page, because there are pages about much smaller creators — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koohikoo (talk • contribs) 23:48, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

References

“Cars = the worst method of transportation”?

In this part of the video “Why Berlin's 15 Year-Old Airport has Never Had a Flight” , he says:

cars—the worst method of transportation (don’t @ me.)

He claims something without explaining it. I actually consider it the most practical and personal method method of transportation. It has more equipment (e.g. power outlets, multimedia, space, etc.) for the individual, is more customizable (one can manually add equipment), in one's own control (instead of following a standard schedule), and a theft-free, pensioner-free private space. (There is no “best” method of transportation, it depends on many factors for a specific usage.) But why does he believe cars are the worst method of transportation? For practical or environmental reasons? (I guess the latter, but I am not sure.) ––Chanc20190325 (talk) 11:17, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

In the previous sentence he was talking about the airport being inspected so that parts of it do not collapse and kill people. After that he says "That is the job of cars, the worst method of transportation." Hence, he claimed cars are the worst method of transportation due to the fact that they are the most unsafe method of transportation. --Consci1 (talk) 12:57, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I see. --Chanc20190325 (talk) 16:46, 5 July 2019 (UTC)