Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jake Olson (photographer)

Jake Olson (photographer)

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)

Apparent autobiographical advertisement page created and edited by subject (new user, only contributions are creating and editing this article). Appears to not be notable; references consist mainly of being listed in several "socially influential photographers" lists, blogs and a self-published biography.

Subject of article appears to not have received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of subject; the article appears to have been created as a promotional tool by the subject. Article is supported mainly by self-published sources (not recommended per BLP guidelines).

Subject appears to not be notable, per WP:BIO. atomicthumbs‽ (talk) 02:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 03:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 03:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 03:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; Appears to be more self-promotional than anything else. I can't find much information about the subject aside from Facebook page, and main website, not much else. Windmillxt6 (talk) 09:48, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I can’t find any non-promotional source on the subject. Okhjon (talk) 09:48, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Commercial artist without significant independent coverage. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Self-promotional advertisement for non-notable photographer (<redacted>). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.113.20.135 (talk) 14:25, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE!!!

Delete; This article is a self-promoting advertisement. I could also write an autobiographical article about my photography and the multiple awards I've won, but it never crossed my mind because I don't have a business to promote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonracey (talk • contribs) 16:14, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Policy based discussions are appreciated and not personal attacks—UY Scuti ^Talk 16:36, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Using wikipedia as self-promotion, also a douche.

Subject of article is a narcissistic, colossal douchebag.

Delete him

-I second that motion! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.84.236.24 (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Subject of article is a waste of space, uses wikipedia to shame others. Delete.^[1]15.195.185.84 (talk) 15:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC) [reply]

This person has not made any notable contributions above and beyond the THOUSANDS of other photographers floating around. Please consider deleting this entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.90.11.237 (talk) 15:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC) [reply]

this guy is a huge chode. Delete- not a good artist and not a good person.

This is clearly a page he created for self promotion.

Delete Artist has created this page as a way to promote himself and shame others on the internet.

References

^ https://i.imgur.com/x1LRoxT.jpg

Delete Seems 100% like self promotion by the subject of the article. - Vman81 (talk) 16:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject is not notable per WP:BIO. John^DO|^{Speak your mind} 16:30, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Most sources I found were promotional, and didn't appear to be independent of the subject. There are a few sources that do meet WP:RS, but not nearly enough to satisfy the requirement for significant coverage per WP:GNG. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely self promotional. 82.42.28.157 (talk) 20:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC
DELETE. Suggests suicide to all who disagree with him. Please see the following link: http://imgur.com/x1LRoxT.
DELETE- Suggests suicide to any who disagree with him, treats others with zero respect, and created this purely for self promotion. Uses it and links it frequently on his pages, as well as using it to rub in others faces as to how "important" he is just because he has his own Wiki page. [kstpeter29]
DELETE- 100% self promotion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.222.194.93 (talk) 04:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This appears to be an obvious violation of WP:COI since the page appears to have been created by Jake Olson himself. Additionally, this does not fit the requirements established by WP:NOTE, specifically in regards to WP:NTEMP and WP:SPIP. Xe7al (talk) 01:12, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not an advertising venue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:4F00:4011:E019:E6EE:B75C:544B (talk) 08:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While the author of this page could have been Jake Olson himself or someone hired to write it, it's important to point out the recent outrage wave towards Olson. Deleting this page can be an small victory fort people who are aware of Olson behavior but for potential clients and collaborators is imperative that they know the kind of person Olson is, while "contributions of the world of art" are a great PR strategy this can never hide the real human being behind his despicable attitude -- Horrasias (talk) 09:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, whether the article is deleted or not will depend solely upon how well the article meets the requirements of Wikipedia's guidelines, especially those guidelines addressed in this discussion. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 12:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if we can all create pages about ourselves, i'd like one! as a budding photographer (who treats people better than this guy (i don't even know who he is, so he's clearly not as famous as he thinks)) i'd like a page about myself!! so can i create one? haha! how long before this does get decided for deletion, or not? TQfan (talk) 20:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- page driven by Facebook controversy and sole Forbes listing (which is questionable given their platforming); seems self-promotional and self-referential. Icarus of old (talk) 22:49, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Forbes and Huffington Post articles cited are written by the CEO of Raynforest, a Marketing company who compensate industry "influencers" to review and promote relevant products online. Neildorgan (talk) 00:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The article is not enlightening about the subject. The subject does not appear to be a notable person, as per the rules for WP:Bio. As per the article history, the article was created on January 16, 2016 by User: A Wiki Account For Me, the page which begins with "Hello, Jake, please have fun editing your own insignificant Wikipedia page. We hope you feel very special by doing so.". I think it's safe to say that the creator of the page is none other than the subject of the "biography". And as we all know, it's generally frowned-upon to write one's own biography on wikipedia. MarchHare (talk) 04:17, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://i.imgur.com/x1LRoxT.jpg

[1]