Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Kontras (3rd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Netitude (talk | contribs) at 20:59, 26 April 2010. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Adam Kontras

AfDs for this article:
Adam Kontras (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previous AfDs closed as no consensus. I was the admin who closed the recent second nomination. I would have left it at that for a while, but Adam has recently contacted me asking that it be relisted for discussion in the hopes that a firm consensus may be found. This is a procedural nomination; I have no opinion regarding the retention or deletion of the page at this time. Shimeru (talk) 19:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Fails WP:BIO. From the last discussion:
According to WP:REDFLAG, exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources. [1], [2], and [3] are all tertiary sources of dubious reliability. The book is self-published; it particularly admits that its content "should not be used a substitute for independent verification". The latter source seems to contain some factual inaccuracies: its claim that the term "vlog" was "coined around 2004" conflicts with the Merriam-Webster's Dictionary, which indicates that the term was actually coined in 2002. A couple of sentences is not significant coverage, particularly in a book. According to WP:RS, tertiary sources should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion. These sources are certainly not good enough for WP:REDFLAG. It's also entirely possible that they used this very same article as their primary source of information.
[4] is a blog with a single mention of the subject. The blog refers to the so-called "interview" ([5]) that doesn't interview the subject at all. It fails WP:VUE and only shows about 20 seconds of video footage that seems to have been taken from the subject's video blog. [6] is a performance announcement in a local student newspaper[7] that has some coverage on the subject but not on the discussed claim. The references in the Early Show, YouTube and Atom.com only link to the subject's video submissions. [8] (translation) and ([9]translation) only have very superficial coverage of the above YouTube video. [10] doesn't cover the subject directly. Being the first first video blogger ever would probably make the subject notable, but so far the claim hasn't been supported by reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. — Rankiri (talk) 21:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, please mention when you have a clear confict of interest. Not only were you the author and one of the main contributors to the article, Google shows that you have a close relationship with the subject as well: [14]. From the subject's blog: So Gordon P. Hemsley, singer extraordinaire, started cleaining up my code. . . . His reason for doing this? 'Cause he can. He has never asked for a dime, and all I can tell him is that when I can - he's my first hire.[15](cache) From Gordon P. Hemsley's (GPHemsley's) YouTube channel: Those in this group are curious as to the events happening to one Adam Kontras. Their support only implies they read it, not that they wish him well. In fact, most people are curious as to just how Adam will continually fail on a larger and larger scale... but they keep reading and watching the videos at 4tvs.com.[16](cache) — Rankiri (talk) 13:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accuse me of whatever you want. You're still missing the point. I've pretty much taken myself out of the debate over whether Adam Kontras is notable according to Wikipedia's guidelines. There is a bigger issue here, in that Adam is being harassed and now impersonated by the same person who wound up instigating AfD #2 because of his repeated vandalism: Charles Groves. As such, AfD #3 was filed on a completely inaccurate basis (though I agree with Outback the koala below that it was in good faith).—Gordon P. Hemsley→✉
  • Delete self-promotion straining every possible resource to demonstrate notability. If good quality sources aren't readily apparent, then it clearly fails. Self-published books and sound-byte length mentions do not indicate notability. Merriam-Webster pretty much puts to rest the idea that this guy was the first at anything. Rklawton (talk) 02:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Adequate sourcing, in my opinion. Passes WP:BIO. Agree with SilverserenC - let's put this issue to rest and let the article undergo normal Wiki development. Evalpor (talk) 22:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete This is an interesting debate, and one that we could rehash for years it seems. There will always be more evidence to be found one way or another. I have spent the last several hours searching for any information on the 'first video blogger' status. There is remarkably little information to be found supporting the subjects claim as first, outside of the subjects own sites, this Wikipedia entry, and people that quote these things as their sources of the subjects claim. This entire issue may not be a noteable one. There does exist much debate on who the first non-video blogger was however, but this too is an impossible thing to prove, hence the reason for the extended debate on that topic. There is no consensus on who the first 'regular blogger' is. Looks to be that the subject of the article has claimed the title 'worlds first video blogger' himself. The reason for lack of notability is that it seems video blogging when established was not a noteable issue, or someone of note would have noticed and written about it. Next issue, while the CBS claim and references are valid, this does not seem to meet Wikipedia guidelines for notablility as was discussed in the second AFD debate. One show, one movie, one mention does not cut it. Cannot count each appearance, or mention as verification of noteability. One cannot simply believe themselves notable, others must feel that they are. Further, the article states things like 'with his characters appearing as the Egos on the sets of such shows as The Price is Right[12] and The Young and the Restless[13]' this seems a clear attempt to lend credibility to the article, and the subject himself; where it does not belong. The subject did not host these programs or appear in the cast of said programs, was not in the credits, therefore this is irrelevant to the subject, as well as being related to the single possibly noteable event, being that of the CBS appearances. And as discussed, that one single program segmant cannot stand on its own as establishment of notability.

I agree totally with Rklawton this is pure self promotion. Someone trying to be famous for trying to be famous. Netitude (talk) 20:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Adam_Kontras_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=358492111"