Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Knight (filmmaker)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 03:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Knight (filmmaker)

Article reads like self-promotion vanity entry for a minor blogger and YouTube artist. Almost all references are to the individual's personal site or other blogs. While there are some claims of notability, subject does not appear to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Fails WP:BIO, recommend Delete. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete with the two other prominent people (LA Times Art Critic and Brady Bunch Star) it's hard to filter but this appears to be the only coverage of the article's subject. If more coverage can be find, I'd change my !vote. Travellingcari (talk) 17:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC) Change to keep per sources identified below. ~~Article still needs to be re-written to add the sources.~~ Travellingcari (talk) 20:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Many external references and sources have been added to the article by your suggestion. I found tonight that Knight's first film Forcery was viewed and given praise by Weird Al Yankovic. This has been noted in the revised article as well. SChadwell84 (talk) 06:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see, you did a very good job wiht that. I've stricken the 'need for re-write' portion of my comment, I had already switched to keep. I'm not sure about listing YouTube as a souce, however, but the ABC and NYTimes, among others are certainly solid. Travellingcari (talk) 06:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That the commercial was broadcast on a privately owned television station broadcasting to the general public in addition to its being archived on Youtube had me sourcing both. SChadwell84 (talk) 07:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SChadwell84 (talk • contribs) 06:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable given many major sources. See, e.g. [1] [2] and [3]. However, as an internet meme, per our convention here on such things the article should be refocused and renamed to be about the phenomenon rather than the person, unless the person himself has any independent notability.Wikidemo (talk) 19:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The commercial alone earned the individual considerable visibility but the copyright infringement claim that Viacom pressed against Knight and that he won gained him even more and in the interest of Wikipedia represents a noteworthy legal precedent regarding digital media and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The individual and his case received significant news coverage in: ABC News, The Wall Street Journal, Wired, Slashdot, ZDNet.com, IMDB Movie News, The San Jose Mercury News, CNET News, Ars Technica, Yahoo! News, Spiegel Online demonstrating international interest in the case, and other major outlets. Also will recommend keeping the article "as is" on grounds that the original work and its peculiar circumstance merits consideration of status other than "meme". Further this person was a candidate for political office whose originality and creative campaign was cited by The New York Times and several other media outlets, which refutes the original claim that the article fails Wikipedia's standards for biography. In addition some of the individual's other widely cited creative contributions have received considerable and official recognition: Midi-chlorians article for TheForce.net and his work toward TRANSFORMERS: The Score that was recognized by Warner Records, in addition to others. SChadwell84 (talk) 19:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While the subject may have received some news coverage, one event does not make a person notable, as in this case, where the majority of the coverage is trivial mebtions. As to the sources you provided, you need to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources, many of which your provided sources do not meet. Your links to the Wall Street Journal, Wired, Slashdot, ZDNet, Ars Technica, the San Jose Mercury News, and Yahoo are all blog entries, which are not acceptable as reliable sources. The ABC article contains mention of Knight in passing on the fourth page - hardly major coverage. I would also hesitate to label Knight as an internet meme, since his sole claim to fame is a passing mention connected to a bonehead move by Viacom - something that was over and done with within a few days, and then forgotten by the internet at large. As to the other claims of notability, I hardly think an essay on a fansite is notable, nor has this editor offered any reasons or evidence as to why he believes it to be so. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment' - Wall Street Journal, Wired, ZDNet, San Jose Mercury News, Ars Technica and New York Times are not reliable sources? SChadwell84 (talk) 21:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Had they been links to actual news articles, that would be one thing. Blogs affiliated with those entities are questionable, as they are generally written without editorial oversight. I'm just saying, please read up on what kinds of sources are acceptable over what kinds are not. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There is certainly editorial oversight within these organizations regarding blogs which are becoming a routine method of conveying legitimate news from an established entity. These are not "John Doe" blogs which I would not source. How can you possibly claim that the Wall Street Journal, Wired and Ars Technica are not "actual news articles"? Does the existence of the word "blog" on those source pages invalidate the material and its source? That is what you are claiming. SChadwell84 (talk) 07:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed a personal attack by a first time user alleging that I am operating under the influence of another editor. This post included wild allegations of a conspiracy against the subject of this AfD, and posted defamatory allegations about another editor not even involved in this discussion. I would remind this new editor that according to the exact WP:NPA policy they linked to, posting "nonpublic personal information about Wikipedia editors" goes beyond the level of mere invective, and so can and should be excised for the benefit of the community and the project. Please, discuss the merits of this AfD, and do not engage in spurious accusations of conspiracy against other editors. If this AfD process results in the keeping of this article, I have no problem with that - that is what this process if for. But based on the original article, which did NOT have any significant references other than Knight's own blog, I felt at the time that the article merited deletion. MikeWazowski (talk) 05:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Has a personal bias driven the move to request deletion? I did not see it but if true that is very valid toward considering in our discussing deletion. That you removed the alleged personal attack yourself without letting others read and judge does not reflect well on you as the one requesting the article be deleted. Significant references to numerous external sources including major news sources have been appended to the article also this evening. SChadwell84 (talk) 06:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can see Persnickety's comment in the history. It seemed like a baseless personal attack, but I don't know the alleged history between the nominator and the subject. I do agree with you that it should not have been removed. I believe it's against Wiki policy to do so, but I can't find that policy. Travellingcari (talk) 06:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no personal bias against the subject - a quick look at my edit history will show a long history of AfD nominations for non-notable vanity articles, the majority of which did not pass muster and were deleted. As I indicated, based on the language on the WP:NPA page, deletion of that kind of personal attack was warranted and allowed. As Travellingcari points out, the comments by the SPA are still in the edit history, should anyone wish to see them - I have not called for them to be purged from the history. I would remind anyone reading this discussion to assume good faith and debate the article in question. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment personal attack redacted. Black Kite 10:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC) A study of MikeWazowski's editing shows that he and Hudgens as therealfennshysa share much history together. MikeWazowski regularly appears to take therealfennshysa's side in editing disputes against other Wikipedia editors. The pattern is so strong that others have noted a relationship between the two also including Hudgens admission to being therealfennshysa. In light of this obvious relationship with or at least bias in favor of one who has a demonstrated history of public antagonism toward the subject of the article including the possibility that MikeWazowski is the same person as John Hudgens/therealfennshysa I believe this calls the entire deletion request into considerable question, in spite of how MikeWazowski tries to defray discussion toward debate about the article's merits which others have upheld here. Recommend again to keep the article this time on grounds that there is strong evidence enough to question the request deletion and that the request has possibly been tainted with prejudice and that there is severe evidence that MikeWazowski is demonstrating personal bias against subject of article. SChadwell84 (talk) 20:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting theory, albeit based on circumstantial evidence. I was not aware of Knight's argument with Hudgens, although a Google search on the two names doesn't bring back any returns. I will admit that TheRealFennShysa and I have been on the same side in many debates, especially regarding Star Trek fan films, but we are different persons - a simple checkuser by Wikipedia staff will verify that. Furthermore, I'm extremely troubled by the public airing of what appears to be a private matter between these two, and I'm debating removing it from this page, as the allegations seem extremely wild and have no supporting evidence. As I have stated, I personally have no bias against Knight, although I will hold him and the article to the same standards of verifiability as any other article - my AfD nomination was based on the lack of sources and the possibility of a vanity page, as was the case two years ago when Knight's Forcery came up for deletion - I'd had the Christopher Knight (disambiguation) page flagged since I nominated the original article (a classic overstated vanity page) for deletion two years ago. If the article stays, so be it - however, baseless ad hominem attacks are not the way to proceed here. MikeWazowski (talk) 01:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You claim no bias however you admit to keeping an active watch on Knight? SChadwell84 (talk) 03:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Common procedure for me in regards to AfDs for vanity pages with extreme claims of notability but no references, as was the case two years ago. They're simply part of my watchlist, which has over 750 entries, and is no different than the eye I keep on pages related to individuals/subjects with deleted pages like Andrew Merkelbach, Chris Notarile, Christine McGladdery, F@NB0Y$, Jason Steele, Starfighters: The Praetorian Issue, or Tawnya Manion. MikeWazowski (talk) 04:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article we are discussing is not a vanity. Its subject matter been given considerable notability in major media. This is proven by the numerous external references to said media in the article. So what is your dispute about this article? SChadwell84 (talk) 04:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Staying out of the issue, however MikeW, I suggest you not remove SChad's comments per Wikipedia:Vandalism, which states in part, "Blanking the posts of other users from talk pages other than your own, Wikipedia space, and other discussions, aside from removing internal spam, vandalism, etc., is generally considered vandalism.". Talk to an admin if you want on WP:ANI, but I'd advise against removing it yourself. No, I'm not an admin but I knew I remembered seeing it somewhere. Removing an SPA post is one thing buut SChad appears to be a regular contributor Travellingcari (talk) 02:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Schadwell is a relatively new user, having only started his account on January 9, whereupon he immediately started making edits and contributions about Christopher Knight. In fact, his entire edit history to date (except for his user page) has been nothing but edits related to Christopher Knight. Read into that whatever you wish. MikeWazowski (talk) 02:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Knight's case has been widely discussed for its unique legal characteristics involving digital copyright. After examining it in a college class I joined Wikipedia to make the entry. I also believe that since Knight and his commercial have become featured widely in popular culture and major media, VH1 and The Soup on E and ABC News and Fox News and New York Times and National Public Radio in addition to others, this qualifies him as notable like The Spirit of Truth, another Youtube meme who received widespread attention. The high profile of Knight's contention with Viacom and how he used the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to win his case rather than giving up alone merits him as notable enough for an entry. SChadwell84 (talk) 03:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.