Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Kontras: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:26, 20 December 2008

Adam Kontras

Little, if any, secondary source material on the subject. Not sure if he was really the first "video blogger" but is that sufficient to meet WP:BIO? Mr. Vernon (talk) 08:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Geez, you're quick. I only put that up minutes ago. Multiple sources make the claim that he was the first video blogger. (See his annotation of them here.) There is also much evidence that he is the longest-running video blogger, having been video blogging consistently since 2000 (nearly nine years ago). In addition, he has appeared on the CBS Early Show many times, as a contestant, host, and performer. He was a radio host on WTVN and CD101 many years ago, and he has also appeared on America's Got Talent (albeit in the audience), and as an extra on The Sopranos. All of this information (and much, much more) can be garnered from his 800+ entries. He also satisfies a number of the notability guidelines for "creative professionals", as well as "entertainers", having pioneered his 4TVs format, as well as his video blogging. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 08:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with Mr. Vernon. The first video blogger claim has a citation which leads to a personal web site (at the time of this posting). Unless new information is produced, I think this misses WP:BIO. --Oliver Twisted 08:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, the link contains screenshots of articles from more reputable (i.e. less personal) sources. I'm in the process of looking up direct links to those articles. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 08:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To your point, screenshots are not WP:RS, and are suspect by their very use. --Oliver Twisted 08:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I'll concede to you that screenshots are not reliable sources (a point I hinted at in my above comment), having been a long-time reader of The Journey, I can assure you that the screenshots are not "suspect by their very use". Here are links to some of the articles he references (and others): [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. All of these links make reference to one or both claims: that he is the first video blogger and/or that he was the host of Living Room Live on CBS's The Early Show, though I gather you are not doubting the latter claim? And I can assure you that he was not in any way involved in the production of these articles (except, possibly, the ones from CBS). —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 08:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assertions in blogs are not reliable. The link which leads to a citation list on Wikipedia video blogging, [[7]], leads to The Wayback Machine, and a page that has been deleted. The claim of The Journey being the first video blog in the 2 sources that do make it, do not agree, as one claims "The Journey" started in 2000, and the last claims it was started in 2004 [8]. None of the sources, including the CBS link to Adam Kontras hosting a local talent show lend any more notability. Also, when you write I can assure you he was in no way responsible... how is that you can make such assurances, especially when the sources don't agree? Just curious. --Oliver Twisted 09:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is The Wayback Machine not reliable? This clearly shows the entry was around in 2001, so it's not too much of a stretch to consider the date of January 2, 2000, on it as correct, especially when the home page is proven to have existed as early as June 2000. All signs point to 2000, except that obviously-mistaken AskTonyBrown article. And Living Room Live is far from a "local talent show". The Early Show is broadcast nationwide every weekday morning, and the contestants on Living Room Live were also from across the United States. And I can make such assurances based on the fact that I've been in personal contact with Adam and can tell his is sincere. Plus, I have been reading The Journey since at least 2004—and all of those entries were already there when I began reading. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 09:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As this is an AfD discussion, rather than debate; this will be my last contribution. I don't wish to antagonize you, but we clearly have a difference of opinion regarding what is reliable. I don't dispute the fact that Adam Kontras is a singular talent (or his personal honesty, by the way) and I don't even dispute the fact that, if the article were completely reworked, you might be able to establish notability solely based upon hosting an affiliate CBS show. The issue at hand is using Wikipedia to perpetuate a grandiose claim which, even at a stretch, could not be supported with reliable sources. Let's allow other editors to now weigh in and evaluate the outcome, to avoid any dipping into WP:NPOV territory. --Oliver Twisted 09:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC) (this proved not to be my final contribution, sorry.)--Oliver Twisted 15:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Besides, I never meant for the article to be left as it is. I was merely submitting a first draft for myself and others to expand upon. However, I suppose you and Mr. Vernon like to patrol the new pages, because you both jumped on me (or rather, the article) within minutes of its submission. I really do feel like the article should be given a chance before it is deleted. After all, I did make the effort to source all of the statements, even if my primary source was his personal blog. We'll see if I'm all alone in this opinion. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 10:13, 18 Decem--Oliver Twisted 15:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)ber 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- That goes to show how reliable secondary sources are. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So make up my mind: What's more reliable, primary sources or secondary sources? —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 09:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As shown above, independent sources exist. The fact they contradict each other is not a valid reason for deletion. It merely proves one of those sources is less reliable than the other. (That's what my previous comment is about. I've seen numerous instances of supposedly reliable secondary sources botching up and making serious mistakes; for non-controversial material primary sources tend to be more reliable) - Mgm|^(talk) 12:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If sources contradict each other, then they're very much, by definition almost, unreliable. Being 'independent' doesn't overcome that rather large hurdle, I'm afraid. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 05:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete so far, the references are all to self-published sources, and are not considered reliable. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Info: In October, 2008 the Video blogging page was edited to remove Adrian Miles who was a Senior Researcher at the University of Bergen as the first known blog. That archive is still live and online, check this out: [9]. Cheers. I love a good mystery. Side Quest!!! --Oliver Twisted 15:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal : Remove intro from article with 1st video blog claim, tweak the article up a bit and then make a new case for notability on some of Adam Kontras other charming talents. Launch the article and see how well it sails on its own, without the videoblog assertions. You lose my charming personality oozing all over this page, and I'll focus on the discussion with the Video blogging editors about getting a consensus for how to structure that timeline now. Here's my deal. I'll stay off your toes on your article. In return, I'd like you to abide by the decision of the editors who have worked on Video blogging, in respect for their time and investment. Deal?--Oliver Twisted 15:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Adam here, (have no idea how to prove that-lol) Just thought I'd clear a few things up. My show blog (which had videos) started in may of 1999 and on January 2nd 2000 it became a personal video blog called The Journey. The Wayback Machine used to verify this, I haven't checked lately - but the 2004 assertion was just poor reporting (as is the reporting I got my start on Youtube). I was not on an affiliate CBS station, I was part of the NATIONAL CBS Early Show and appeared several times in NY and did my segment, Adam & The Egos at Television City in Los Angeles. I'm not sure how anyone could've derived it as local - a quick search on cbsnews.com and every egos episode is archived there. The Let's Bomb Iran cartoon received millions of hits and was spotlighted on MSNBC in April 2006. All of which is documented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.93.75.220 (talk) 16:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adam. As I stated above, I'm not disputing your notability in that regard, and have just basically said run with it, if you have the sources. I'd like some further time to resolve the First Video Blog claim, because this may set a benchmark of sorts... and there is argument for both sides. Adrian Miles has live screen shots, at the time called vogs instead of vlogs. They are well documented in 2000. From what I could get to load on Wayback, June 2000 seems to be the most recent footage of The Journey, which has survived. There is some discussion on this topic that will need to go on, irrespective of the article about you. If your bio article is approved, the decision, whatever it ends up being, can then simply be added. Surely this is a win-win for everybody? --Oliver Twisted 16:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Info: Adam here again... On the first video blog claim, using TheWayBack Machine, you can find this: http://web.archive.org/web/20001216151000/http://www.4tvs.com/Journey/Pages/journal.html that shows the site from a June 2000 web-crawl. Amazingly you can go to the video pages and go into the "4tvs Theater" and watch the first videos. I haven't seen this design in nearly 10 years!! :-) You can even go back to 1999 when I was doing a video blog on my 4tvs show: http://web.archive.org/web/20010521095144/www.4tvs.com/Shows/112799.html - but this was very erratic, not all shows had video, and is a very weak claim to the start of all video blogging. However it should be noted that I was blogging and had attached videos that early. It became a personal video blog on January 2, 2000 and at the very least the conspiracy theorists could say that somehow on June 21st, 2000 when this random web crawl occured I knew this, recreated 55 entries and started June 21st. I hope I'm not the only one who hears how ridiculous that sounds. But how else can we prove this? And do I need to take a screen-capture of the wayback machine for fear that those pages will be lost? I really want to get to the bottom of this because it's a HUGE date in history and I'm incredibly proud of how long I've been doing this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.149.233.6 (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Large problems with reliable sourcing, lack of independent, and, overall, not particularly important achievements adds up to 'try again later when you have more to show for it'. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 05:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Info:Alright, I'm just gonna kind of ignore the "lack of reliable sourcing" comment cause if CBS News (http://search.cbsnews.com/?source=cbs&q=Adam+%26+The+Egos&x=0&y=0) isn't enough - nothing will be. (I guess I didn't ignore that too well. LOL.) Anyway - I'm writing because I have the original vlog files and they have timestamps to verify their creation date which should be able to put this debate to rest. Let me know the best way to proceed (though I believe you can even download the original files, ie: http://4tvs.com/media/journey/yearone/03%20-%20New%20Mexico.MPG and check the source--this one is 01.03.00--'cause you can't erase the original timestamp even when it's copied). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.149.233.6 (talk) 19:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Out of curiosity, why do you want your own Wikipedia page so bad? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm more concerned with verifying the start of the first video blog. It's been my life's work for the past ten years and whether or not Wikipedia thinks that's notable only matters because people use it as a source. It's my baby, what can I say?

@@ Line 28: / Line 28: @@
 *'''Info:'''Alright, I'm just gonna kind of ignore the "lack of reliable sourcing" comment cause if CBS News (http://search.cbsnews.com/?source=cbs&q=Adam+%26+The+Egos&x=0&y=0) isn't enough - nothing will be.  (I guess I didn't ignore that too well.  LOL.)  Anyway - I'm writing because I have the original vlog files and they have timestamps to verify their creation date which should be able to put this debate to rest.  Let me know the best way to proceed (though I believe you can even download the original files, ie: http://4tvs.com/media/journey/yearone/03%20-%20New%20Mexico.MPG and check the source--this one is 01.03.00--'cause you can't erase the original timestamp even when it's copied).  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/64.149.233.6|64.149.233.6]] ([[User talk:64.149.233.6|talk]]) 19:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
 **Out of curiosity, why do you want your own Wikipedia page so bad?  --[[User:Mr. Vernon|Mr. Vernon]] ([[User talk:Mr. Vernon|talk]]) 06:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
+***I'm more concerned with verifying the start of the first video blog.  It's been my life's work for the past ten years and whether or not Wikipedia thinks that's notable only matters because people use it as a source.  It's my baby, what can I say?