Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesse R. Waugh: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:48, 11 June 2013

Jesse R. Waugh

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Most of this article appears to be based on a self-published book by the author. There are no reliable independent sources in the article or that I can find using Google search to establish any notability. I am One of Many (talk) 07:32, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional information:The article Jesse Waugh has been created before by the sockpuppet Nickkang.--I am One of Many (talk) 07:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That may be, however it has no bearing on the fact that reliable sources have been added to improve and substantiate the article. HSoberg (talk) 12:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)Blocked as sock.—Kww(talk) 16:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Well, no actually, there appear to be few if any reliable sources per WP:RS that I have found. I am currently going through the references offered and I'm not seeing any that are proper sources. I am One of Many's concern is justified. If a known sockpuppeteer created an early version of this article, that's something we should all know. This could be a recreation by another sockpuppet of that editor. All the keep !votes are single-purpose accounts and this edit is troubling. Care to explain why you removed another editor's comment, or were you attempting to !vote a second time as an IP and got caught by a bot when trying to fix it under your username? Either way, it's not acceptable.

freshacconci talktalk 13:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment I attempted to move that vote down as it had been placed at the top of the page, which I viewed to be in the wrong place. It was not any impropriety on my part as you have suggested. I'm not sure what vendetta you and I am One of Many have against the establishment of this valid page, but you are incorrect to state that it contains no reliable sources demonstrating notability--which is the primary criterion for the existence of any Wikipedia page. Furthermore, I see Freshacconci that you are interested in Wikipedia pages pertaining to art and artists--judging by the number of edits you have performed on such pages--so it seems contrary to me that you should be so adamantly opposed to creation of a page dedicated to a subject who is obviously (and demonstrably) a notable artist. It leads one to suspect that there might be vested interests or ulterior motives at play here.HSoberg (talk) 14:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)Blocked as sock.—Kww(talk) 16:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply If that is true, I apologize, however, that doesn't answer the question: why did you delete the comment? There are exactly 19 seconds that pass between the time the IP makes his first edit and you deleting his comment, which appears to happen because the bot autosigned your username. I have been on Wikipedia long enough to know that as soon as the accusations of "vested interests or ulterior motives" appear it is proven to be a deflection. As for notability, no, this has not been demonstrated and there are few if any reliable sources per WP:RS. When I have time, before the AfD is over, I will register my !vote with a detailed explanation as to why the sources listed are not reliable. You are free to add any sources that help establish notability, but I suggest you read WP:RS and WP:V carefully. freshacconci talktalk 14:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply You suggest I read them carefully? That is a veiled threat. Bullying_in_academia Is it your intent to gang up with I am One of Many to bully me into giving up my defense of the creation of this article? This while you freely admit that there may very well be reliable sources already in place. You nitpick while "I am One of Many" accuses every voter on this entry of sockpuppetry. You and I am One of Many are enforcing your deletionist agenda through gang tactics, without truly considering that the notability of the content and the referencing of the article are adequately sourced. HSoberg (talk) 14:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)Blocked as sock.—Kww(talk) 16:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Wow. Again, that's a lot of deflection. How you managed to see a suggestion that you carefully read Wikipedia policies as a "veiled threat" is beyond me. As for ganging up, I have never encountered I am One of Many before this AfD discussion so it is unlikely that we're ganging up as we don't know each other. We are two editors expressing our opinions. You seem to be aware of a great deal of Wiki culture and guidelines so you're hardly a newbie. I feel the article is not sourced well, that most of the sources are not reliable and when I have the time I will explain my opinion on the matter in detail, so no, in fact I am considering this very carefully. In the end it will be up to the closing admin to make the decision. In any case, I am moving on for now. freshacconci talktalk 15:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        "~~when I have the time I will explain my opinion on the matter in detail..." Another veiled threat. What motivates you? HSoberg (talk) 15:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)~~Blocked as sock.—Kww(talk) 16:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There is also a sockpuppet investigation Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cinesis.--I am One of Many (talk) 15:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notated artist.--Iamsrkfan (talk) 09:06, 9 June 2013 (UTC)Blocked as sock.—Kww(talk) 16:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable per WP:CREATIVE His work was exhibited at the Los Angeles Museum of Contemporary Art. "(b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition"--WordsworthNYC 16:42, 9 June 2013 (UTC) This template must be substituted.Blocked as sock.—Kww(talk) 16:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep This article now has an acceptable reference to a film festival listing showing nominated work by the artist. Please withdraw the nomination. --HSoberg 17:21, 9 June 2013 (UTC) This template must be substituted.Blocked as sock.—Kww(talk) 16:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment AfD discussions take 7 days and are typically not withdrawn unless the nominator changes his mind. freshacconci talktalk 21:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Three reliable independent references have been added to address the concerns of the nominator. The first is a documentary produced by a third party pertaining to work done by the artist, the second is a film festival nomination, the third is an independent review. --HSoberg 21:32, 9 June 2013 (UTC)Blocked as sock.—Kww(talk) 16:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A listing and video of the 2008 Pill Awards nominees for Best Experimental Short has been added as a fourth reliable source. --HSoberg 13:58, 10 June 2013
Keep Exhibited artist.Seems up and coming12.40.227.4 (talk) 01:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The concern of the nominator that the article is based on a self-published book is not borne out by a text comparison, and multiple reliable sources have been referenced. Cinesis (talk) 14:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC) This template must be substituted.Blocked as sockpuppeteer.—Kww(talk) 16:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Additional information:This tedious debate is moot. As per Wikipedia guidelines - which we should be following here - if the Pill Awards are notable, then nominees of the Pill Awards are notable, and two solid sources have been added which prove Jesse R. Waugh was nominated for the 2008 Best Experimental Short Pill Award. Beyond this, a third reliable source has been added - a review featured on the Best Horror Movies website of Jesse Waugh's 2011 film "Death Of A Dummy." I challenge I am One of Many and Freshacconci to prove all three of these to be inadequate sources, for if even one of them is a reliable source then it should be deemed sufficient evidence of notability. HSoberg (talk) 15:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)Blocked as sock.—Kww(talk) 16:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This kangaroo court prejudges articles before it reads them. I can only remain hopeful that the final judge will be in favor of keeping this reliably sourced article. 12.38.132.137 (talk) 17:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 24: / Line 24: @@
 *<s>'''Keep''' The concern of the nominator that the article is based on a self-published book is not borne out by a text comparison, and multiple reliable sources have been referenced. [[User:Cinesis|Cinesis]] ([[User talk:Cinesis|talk]]) 14:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC){{spa|Cinesis}}</s>Blocked as sockpuppeteer.&mdash;[[User:Kww|Kww]]([[User talk:Kww|talk]]) 16:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 <s>*'''Additional information''':This tedious debate is moot. As per Wikipedia guidelines - which we should be following here - if the [[Pill Awards]] are notable, then nominees of the [[Pill Awards]] are notable, and two solid sources have been added which prove Jesse R. Waugh was nominated for the 2008 Best Experimental Short Pill Award. Beyond this, a third reliable source has been added - a review featured on the Best Horror Movies website of Jesse Waugh's 2011 film "Death Of A Dummy." I challenge I am One of Many and Freshacconci to prove all three of these to be inadequate sources, for if even one of them is a reliable source then it should be deemed sufficient evidence of notability. [[User:HSoberg|HSoberg]] ([[User talk:HSoberg|talk]]) 15:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)</s></s>Blocked as sock.&mdash;[[User:Kww|Kww]]([[User talk:Kww|talk]]) 16:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
+* '''Keep''' This kangaroo court prejudges articles before it reads them. I can only remain hopeful that the final judge will be in favor of keeping this reliably sourced article. [[Special:Contributions/12.38.132.137|12.38.132.137]] ([[User talk:12.38.132.137|talk]]) 17:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 :<small class="delsort-notice">Note:  This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/United States of America|list of United States of America-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Gene93k|• Gene93k]] ([[User talk:Gene93k|talk]]) 18:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)</small>
 :<small class="delsort-notice">Note:  This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Visual arts|list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Gene93k|• Gene93k]] ([[User talk:Gene93k|talk]]) 18:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)</small>