Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesse R. Waugh

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 delete. WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 05:05, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse R. Waugh

(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) — WordsworthNYC (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 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)— HSoberg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 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)— Cinesis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 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]

Delete Not notable and the sock puppetry is disturbing. Dusty|💬|You can help! 18:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable subject, well written, and reliably sourced. 63.92.225.169 (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't understand the controversy here. Jesse Waugh is definitely a notable artist based on the citations in the article. 96.56.192.118 (talk) 15:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC) — 96.56.192.118 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Voceditenore (talk) 16:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The only thing disturbing about the alleged sock puppetry is the near-terroristic response it has elicited from certain vitriolic editors. I find their motives quite questionable. Notable. 65.88.88.70 (talk) 17:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I found the following quoted post on an internet conspiracy forum, and while it is certainly over the top tinfoil-hat speculation, something about it rings true and reminded me of the ridiculous attack being lodged against the creation of this article by editors who attempt to monopolize information on Wikipedia by strong-arming, manipulating, attacking and bullying new editors: "Wikipedia is run by a monolithic cabal of intelligence agents in the UK, US, and Israel which acts as a block to control information presented to the public. While Wikipedia is notorious for its leftist bent, this is only part of a cover. In the Wikipedia guidelines for Notability (people), porn actors are given precedence over painters. Moral concerns aside, this is a faulty hierarchical assessment--unless you have a design in place for social subversion. During the traumatic, lengthy, soul-destroying AfD(Articles for Deletion) process, "Newbies" are tortured, lambasted, attacked, accused of "sock puppetry" and bullied into giving up their attempt to create a new Wikipedia page for a given subject. The deeply disturbing behaviour exhibited by long-time Wikipedia editors is usually explained away as that of middle-aged British and American male fuddy-duddies and failed scholars seeking revenge against society for their not being recognised as the literary luminaries or genius software programmers that they think they are. The truth, however, is much darker and perhaps even more painful: Wikipedia is run by intelligence agencies! MI5/6, CIA, and Mossad. Doubt it? Then ask yourself this question: Why wouldn't intelligence agencies have the most deeply vested interest in manipulating the world's primary source of intelligence: Wikipedia?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.70 (talk) 17:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are you trying say that Jesse R. Waugh is more than a non-notable artist? Perhaps a secret agent?--I am One of Many (talk) 18:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I checked out all the "references" and did an extensive search on this person under a variety of search terms. Every single one of the references (apart from the Pill Awards videos) either fails to mention the subject or was written/uploaded by the subject himself. The Greggy and Berky film was never broadcast by the BBC and we can only take his word for it that it was even considered as a "pilot". He did not win a Pill Award, only nominated for a short, and even that is only half verified via videos claiming to be a collection of Pill Award nominees. The award no longer has its own website. Apart from that, nothing. This is simply not enough. An artist who is notable, has at the very least least reviews of his work in the specialist press and usually the mainstream press as well. "Emerging" is the key word here. Wikipedia is for the fully emerged, not the emerging. Voceditenore (talk) 18:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Voceditenore pretty much said what I wanted to say. I went though each source and found nothing that establishes notability. The key to notability requirements is that the source needs to fulfill WP:RS and WP:V beyond the trivial. There are no sources available that are not connected to the subject or only mention him in passing. This is a classic case of WP:TOOSOON, coupled with an over-aggressive subject and/or his friends. Case in point: the original article was just "Jesse Waugh". That was deleted as non-notable and was recreated as "Jesse R. Waugh", even though the artist apparently does not use his middle initial. Clearly this was an attempt to pass by unnoticed. Whoever is behind all the blocked sock accounts and the slew of IPs popping up today knows their way around Wiki and uses the appropriate language (although with a misunderstanding or willful misunderstanding of actual Wiki policy). Obviously there is some campaign out there to flood this AfD with keep votes, or it's the same person (given the language and reasoning is very similar to one another). Likewise, the conspiracy talk, accusations and attacks are a form of deflection, in order to make this discussion appear to be biased or hostile to supposed newbies. In any case, this clearly does not pass WP:ARTIST let alone WP:GNG. freshacconci talktalk 19:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. And reliably sourced as per Voceditenore. Freshacconci or "I am One of Many" have deleted two votes that I am aware of - one was mine which has been completely erased and a vote by someone else was erased just now. This is clearly unethical behavior. The record should reflect these points. I request that this be investigated by responsible editors. 98.113.167.4 (talk) 19:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Voceditenore !voted delete and her rationale indicates that the sources do not prove notability. The two editors that were deleted were done so for attacking another editor and for vandalism. As you know, of course. freshacconci talktalk 19:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been watching this unfold. I have also seen multiple Keep votes deleted - apparently by Freshacconci and I am One of Many. I am now keeping records of all of the Keep votes and will repost a list of deleted votes if any further are deleted. 65.88.88.75 (talk) 20:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Anyone can see what was deleted by looking at the article history and I'd be more than happy to let anyone know about any comments I deleted. If the IPs that are flooding this page stop attacking other editors then their comments won't be deleted. And I remind everyone, per the notice at the top of this page, that this isn't a majority vote. Asking your friends to vote or adding keep !votes from different IP addresses to make it look like it's multiple editors will not help your case. This is a discussion based on policy and guidelines. Attacking other editors only weakens your argument. freshacconci talktalk 20:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Referenced and notable. 65.88.88.75 (talk) 20:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've notified this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. The blatant flood of IP socks here and their personal attacks have now become extremely disruptive to this discussion. I also recommend that if the decision is "Delete", both Jesse Waugh and Jesse R. Waugh be salted. Voceditenore (talk) 21:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent references supporting notability found. None of the cites given show any of the four conditions of WP:ARTIST are met. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but not precisely for the reasons given by other delete voters. In my eyes, the key to deletion is the complete absence of substantial coverage in reliable sources. This is far more important than faulting the self-published nature of the main source — as long as we remember that self-published sources don't contribute to notability, we shouldn't object to their existence. Nyttend (talk) 23:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Voceditenore, Freshacconci, Nyttend. Gamaliel (talk) 23:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lack of substantial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Only substantial source is self-published. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. None of the sources in the article appear to be reliable. I did my own search for sources but came up empty. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence subject meets WP:GNG. The majority of the sources in the article do not appear to be WP:RSes and those that are do not discuss the subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:53, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable in any reasonable encyclopedic sense. Also, use of sockpuppet accounts in a deletion discussion is rarely a sign of a good-faith article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, mostly per Andrew Lenahan and WP:SNOW. Many of the arguments for keeping this have been entirely devoid of policy-based rationale. The sources cited really don't reflect significant coverage of the subject and so claiming the article is "reliably sourced" simply isn't accurate. Stalwart111 04:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I support the salting of both articles titles. Stalwart111 04:35, 14 June 2013 (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.