Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kurt Benbenek

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. Kimchi.sg 05:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kurt Benbenek

Kurt Benbenek (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Strong notability concerns. Also reads like a vanity article with a significant lack of objective references. Was proposed for deletion, but the tag was removed without explanation -- Tim D 00:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete where to start? The Yahoo! reference doesn't say anything about a "pick of the year". Googling for "benbenek site:eastvillageartsdistrict.com" returns no results. The other references are just fluff — I can't see any notability here. Demiurge 01:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete bolding his name wherever it appears is a good indication of the content. Danny Lilithborne 01:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as is now. Has a window of hope if anyone can produce third-party reliable sources that indicate that this guy is known outside of his own self-created websites. Makes many assertions of notability, mainly for producing apparently non-notable works of art and performing with non-notable punk bands. I am willing to change my vote if notability can be established by producing third-party reviews of ANY of his work in reliable sources. --Jayron32 02:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I'll never have the five seconds I wasted looking at that NN piece of vanity crud back. Pete Fenelon 02:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete ditto on Pete's comments. ReverendG 03:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -Nothing notable. Arctic-Editor 15:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, the individual has apparently earned enmity in the free-art-online world, but that's not the same as notability. --Dhartung | Talk 16:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• COMMENT What is "the free-art-online world"?? And what does "enmity" mean? Do you think this Benbenek guy is trying to use Wikipedia as some sort of "free-art" open-source text project?? I get the feeling you're correct. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tennyson Miles (talk • contribs). — Tennyson Miles (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• COMMENT So, suddenly Wikipedia is all about "notability"...or maybe it's just a kind of high-tech, open-source popularity contest? Not that many people in the obscure-est reaches of Arkansas or Mt Everest know who Einstein was (or what he did) yet Einstein is in Wikipedia. There are thousands of entries in Wikipedia that ARE NOT of a "notable" nature. How unfair is it to discredit a simple entry on the basis of "notability" - this type of "notability-based" stamp-of-approvalocity is unfair and narrow-minded and should not be tolerated. It's interesting to see that four or five guys (always guys...) with little sense of the "real" world can make or break a Wikipedia entry. All the negative criticism of this entry is based on spurious INTERNET data. Has anyone called The Swedenborg Society or East Village Arts District for verification of these Benbenek entry claims? Nah, I doubt it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Otis Fodder (talk • contribs).

The following comments were added after this page was blanked by User:Otis Fodder, who created the article in question. Daveydweeb (^chat/_review!) 07:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment No reason for nomination? Hmm. Daveydweeb (^chat/_review!) 06:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I might be tempted to agree with the reasoning given, had it actually been given. As such I see this as a closeable incomplete nom. --Dhartung | Talk 06:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

  Allow me to add some reasoning, then. See my comment below. :) Daveydweeb (^chat/_review!) 07:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, Benbenek does not appear to live up to Wikipedia's standards of notability:

• His name gets just over 500 hits on Google, not a good start.
• His personal website, here, has an Alexa ranking of over 1.6 million. Thus, the claim "Over the past 10 years, Benbenek has posted literally hundreds of unique and artistic web pages, making Houseplant Picture Studio one of the most popular arts-oriented sites on the internet." a total falsehood.
• "In the early 1990s,Benbenek was a member of the rock band The Shatners"; the band's website is hosted on Geocities, not good. Also, in the less than 1,000 google hits for this band, I cannot find a relevant and reliable source that mentions Benbenek's name. Moreover, the band's albums are on Archive.org, so they appear to be unsigned.
• "In 1996, Benbenek relocated to London, England where he was Assistant Secretary at The Swedenborg Society" - the only sources I can find to verify this claim are from Wikipedia and the Answers.com and About.com mirrors of this page, and his Blogspot page.
• "Between 1997 and 2005 Benbenek collaborated with and produced five albums for the Woolwich punk band The Plumstead Common" - this band gets even fewer hits than Benbenek's own name (164 according to Google), has not been signed, and so on, and so forth.
• "In 2005, Benbenek also co-produced the critically acclaimed album Haymarket Revival by The Magnesium Pie " - this would be easier to believe if the review that was added to support this claim actually loaded, but the site appears to be down. Of course, it doesn't help that the band's name only gets 95 hits on Google, and no verifiable sources among them.
• His solo album, "Third Toga Party from the Sun", gets only 179 google hits and no credible or reliable sources/reviews/mentions that I can find.

So, the article's claims to notability appear to be completely unfounded. Daveydweeb (^chat/_review!) 07:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Was vandalised when I read it, but by what I've seen above & checked in the history, this article should be exterminated... Spawn Man 08:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - WP:N - was also vandalised when I went to read it. Bubba hotep 09:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Bucketsofg 14:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable.__Seadog ^♪ 18:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable enough. Fails WP:BIO. 0L1 Talk Contribs 18:50 25/11/2006 (UTC)
• Delete his name is no longer bolded throughout, but that change does not create notability where there was none.--Anthony.bradbury 21:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete-fails notability guidelines WP:BIO.--John Lake 23:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• DO NOT DELETE - COMMENT I disagree...BENBENEK is very notable within and without Wikipedia guidelines. Does anyone (ie; freelance and unpaid Wikipedia editors) access knowledge bases beyond the internet around here? A few well-placed REAL WORLD phone calls might change a few minds concerning BENBENEK and his lengthy and very notable list of artistic and musical accomplishments. Calls for BENBENEK article deletion are premature and nothing but pure tech chatter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Otis Fodder (talk • contribs).
  • As the dissenter, isn't the onus at least partially on you to point everyone to some of these "knowledge bases beyond the internet"? Also, since a substantial portion of the subject's claims to notability are based on his Web site, using Web-based research techniques isn't entirely out of place. I tend to agree that WP is somewhat biased toward first-world Google-at-my-fingertips research methods, but it's not like the subject in question works entirely outside of that realm, so it's reasonable to expect him to have left a mark there. Regards, PhilipR 02:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• COMMENT - - No, of course web-based research isn't out of place...but not all "notability" resides on the internet or is easily graspable via email, Google or (egads!) Wikipedia. Someone above mentioned they couldn't (or can't contact) The Swedenborg Society via electronic means...my suggestion is to use the telephone.

The problem with Wikipedia and it's users is that it (and they) assume everything of importance is web-based and can be found through Google, etc. It isn't and never will be. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Otis Fodder (talk • contribs).

• Comment. The Internet is kind of like a meta-resource. If something is picked up by any medium (books, magazines, news reports, etc.), it will show up on the Internet. Almost every newspaper in the country is indexed by Google news, for instance. I'm trying to think of a possible exception to all of this, but I'm having trouble. Do you have any examples in particular? -- Tim D 04:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

COMMENT - - I don't know what you mean by "meta-resource" - sounds like questionable and vague Wikipedia-speak to me. Just because some cultural thing is "on the internet" (or can be quantified via often shady and/or meaningless internet statistics) doesn't mean it's "notable" (whatever "notable" means!) - some of the least notable things in the world started and died quick deaths on the internet. Where EXACTLY is it written that Google statistics are absolute LAW? For example, how is a website's (or person's or thing's) popularity or "success" or "notability" calculated on the internet? Is it calculated by number of VISITORS, PAGE VIEWS or ADVERTISEMENT REVENUE(s) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Otis Fodder (talk • contribs).

• reply to User:Otis Fodder. At issue here is that any information we put into an article about Kurt Benbenek must be cross-referenced to a print or internet source outside of wikipedia, and also not written by Kurt Benbenek. It is real simple. If you can provide print or internet references, not written by Kurt Benbenek or anyone connected to him, that appear in any source that undergoes editorial process (newspapers(like New York Times), magazines(like Rolling Stone), edited websites(Like Salon.com), trade journals(like Variety), books, etc.) the article gets kept. Its that simple. This isn't a popularity contest, and it isn;t biased. Your calling it so does not make it so. Let me repeat what I said before. PROVIDE REFERENCES THAT TALK ABOUT KURT BENBENEK AND YOU KEEP THE ARTICLE. No one has done that yet. We don't want blogs, we don't want chat forums, we don't want phone numbers. We want references that someone has written, an editor has reviewed, and a publisher has published. Such requirements are for every article, and the standard is applied here and everywhere else without prejudice. --Jayron32 05:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

COMMENT - When you say "we" ("We don't want blogs, we don't want chat forums.."), do you mean that you're paid by Wikipedia and you speak for them and all involved with Wikipedia? If you're NOT being paid to debate and investigate articles (such as this BENBENEK article), why do you do it and why do you use the word "we"? Are you speaking for Wikipedia as a thing or as an internet corporate entity? Or is the "we" referring to only you? This will help me respond to your immediately-previous comment...because I worry when single individuals start throwing the "we" word around. Plus I'm a little new to Wikipedia as an open-source text phenomenon. Plus I'm too lazy to hunt down your "Wikipedia User Profile" and see if you're part of official Wikapedia management. I figure you're probably just eager to respond to just about anything any body throws on these ever-changing and well-formatted pages. My other guess is that you're a BOT, but Wikipedia BOTs are probably out on Thanksgiving weekend vacation.

So, what is this "we" that you type of...? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Otis Fodder (talk • contribs).

• reply The "we" that wrote the following policies and guidelines:
  • policy on verifiability
  • guidelines on reliable sources
  • policy against original research
  • guidelines on notability
  • policy on maintaining a neutral point of view
  • policy that states you should sign your name on talk pages
  • policy against taking ownership of an article

It is real simple. Click on each blue link I have put above. Read each policy and guideline. Rewrite your article so it meets the guidelines and policies set out above. Then the article gets kept. I refuse to use "I" when I mean "we". These are policies and guidelines that have been established and used by thousands of wikipedia editors long before I came along, and continue to be used by many thousands more. That is the "we" of which I speak.--Jayron32 06:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Otis Fodder, I think we can say that the authority of Wikipedia editors or the Internet isn't up for review here. All that's needed is for you or someone else to provide some real and accessible sources to back up the notability of Mr. Benbenek. That's all! And in response to your above question, a "meta-resource" is by definition a resource of resources. -- Tim D 06:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• My dear mom (who was somehow born in the 20s in Missouri without the use of Wikipedic means of childbirth) always taught me to watch out for ***GROUP THINK*** and when some anonymous guy on the internet tells me to "follow the blue links" I think I better start worrying. Guy...guys...if you all really have raging hard-ons for deleting my nice, little BENBENEK article, then by all means cite Wikipedia authority and direct people to your blue links until you're blue in the face and get on with it. I figure the BOTs have the final say anyway in these important article matters...so...whatever.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Otis Fodder (talk • contribs).

• if the "authority of Wikipedia editors" isn't up for review here, then where exactly will the review take place? I'd like to reserve a special front row seat when it happens.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Otis Fodder (talk • contribs).

• Speaking of Wikipedia (and don't we all...) my biggest worry is that if all the knowledge in the world is sucked and uglified into Wikipedia, THEN if the worldwide electricity grid ever (somehow) goes out or is compromised by aliens from Neptune (one day in the bleak, Bradburyan future) then we're all up a wet knowledge creek with no brain paddles...because by then (as the Scriptures say) Google will have scanned and destroyed all our books including real encyclopedias and dictionaries, etc - therefore, putting everything on the internet is not totally good OR wise! Those that somehow think they are ***The Master Internet Scribes of Wikipedia*** should maybe give the whole smelly deal a better think-through...and also maybe should possibly be suspicious of cyber-movements of masses of lonely like-minded and self-proclaimed editors of The Almighty Wiki(pedia) into ONE MIND SET. It didn't work for the Freemasons and Lynyrd Skynyrd, so why in heck should it work here?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Otis Fodder (talk • contribs).

• if a meta-resource is a "resource of resources" then I guess a meta-meta-resource would (by definition) be a "resource of resource of resources" - language sure is fun and mysterious. Yes, yes, yes...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Otis Fodder (talk • contribs).
  • You know what...that is absolutely correct! So what do you think a meta-meta-meta-resource might be? Personally, I'm stumped. -- Tim D 17:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• I don't know if you're serious or what. Tennyson Miles 01:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per all above and WP:SNOW, this is going nowhere. Is it just me, or does it seem like on AfD's, that there's nearly always an an inverse ratio between the amount of longwinded protests by an author and the amount of sources they come up with? Tubezone 09:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - I've started receiving prank e-mails from this jerk. Rklawton 14:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I have too. I think that it might be an attempt at quasi-aggressive post-modernism or something. -- Tim D 17:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, everything I had planned on saying was said above. I only found this because, even though I have no idea why I was chosen, I was spammed with a ridiculous email attempting to canvas a keep !vote from me. Not gonna happen. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 01:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per extensive research by Daveydweeb. Lack of reliable sources means I am not inclined to believe Otis Fodder, who has a record of vandalism. Ohconfucius 03:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Gentlemen...guys...fellas...we're all on the same team here, right? Huh? Am I right? I mean we all watch "Family Guy" and think Bill Gates is real neato. Now, take off your frowns and put on some BIG happy faces and retract all your deletes...please I beg of each and every one of you guys...oh, please. PS - looking forward to reading more impassioned commentary by this distinguished and highly intelligent, freelance and unpaid volunteer Wikipedia semi-editorial crew. You guys are doin' great! Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Otis Fodder (talk • contribs) 00:06, 27 November 2006.
  • I was going to reply that I don't really like Bill Gates, but after thinking about it for a minute, I guess he is a pretty good guy, what with all his charity funding and all. But that's neither here nor there. Now back to topic! :) :) :) -- Tim D 06:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Exactly how many categories of flame war does above comment by author fit into? It's certainly above 1. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

*Do Not Delete - how long do these "delete debates" tend to drag on? It seems like you guys have an awful lot of free time to waste on such an insignificant article as this! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Otis Fodder (talk • contribs) 17:08, 27 November 2006.

• • *sigh* - I'm not supposed to use the T-word, they tell me... Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and ban Otis Fodder for spamming. Danny 22:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Ban - per nom and for disruptive behavior. Rklawton 23:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete Hey, guys (and I use that term in kind reference to each and every one of you) you all sure certainly seem to be dragging your collective Wikipedia-enraged feet. Why hasn't anyone sent the real BOTS in? You know...the BOTs that Wikipedia management keeps in reserve for situations such as these. Every cry of "DELETE" only makes me more determined to fight tooth and nail to preserve the integrity and textual (and paragraphical) essence of what this proud and defiant "Artist Formerly Known As Kurt Benbenek" article means. Thanks! Have a great day! PS - ask yourself if your mom would want you to vote for deletion and then please vote your conscience...and also watch out for the BOTS. They seem to be everywhere in this Wikipedic Hell! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Otis Fodder (talk • contribs). — Otis Fodder (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete On top of all this - "Otis Fodder" is assuming someone else's identity. I believe Otis Fodder is actually Kurt Benbenek. How do I know this? Because I know Otis Fodder - and he would not defend this page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.18.157.87 (talk • contribs).
• Delete per Daveydweeb. Maxamegalon2000 06:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete - So, now I'm being accused of using a pseudonym...here...as I defend my article. Hey, Einstein...the internet lives and dies on the concept of pseudonymic nomenclature veiling (hiding one's identity) so I wouldn't get your britches in too tight of a twist. As for you "knowing Otis Fodder" I can only assume you're speaking in the Biblical sense and so, enough of all this high-and-mighty pseudonym-bashing. I can use damn well ANY pseudonym I want, under Wikipedic Law or any other law. So, buzz off and go get a coffee with your best bud Otis Fodder...geez, you wiseacres are all the same. How you all could be so mean, cruel and nasty at this time of the year is beyond me. You narrow-minded and frigid (morally) PRO-DELETE GUYS must be some kind of mutant Dickensian Scrooges without hearts, Souls or common Universal decency. Fer cryin' out loud leave my little "Artist Formerly Known As Kurt Benbenek" article the Hell alone and go back to wrapping Christmas presents and de-fragmenting your constantly-malfunctioning 64 MB thumb drives. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Otis Fodder (talk • contribs).
  • Comment one vote per person - please stop voting multiple times --ArmadilloFromHell 07:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete-No mentions of notability, extreme disruption by the author. I smell WP:OWN and WP:VAIN here.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Can we just delete now per WP:SNOW and WP:DFTT? Even the author has admitted it's a losing proposition, and prolonging this discussion helps nothing but to indeed continue feeding. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 09:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Where's the guy who has problems with my "Otis Fodder" pseudonym? I think all debate should cease until he has a chance to respond to my immediately-previous comment.Anyway, all of this is beside the point becasue someone has already transferred my article (under it's previous title) to another informational web area. Please reset your browsers to the following independent HTML page... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Otis Fodder (talk • contribs) 15:53, 28 November 2006.
• Delete and salt - And possibly ban the author. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 18:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Wow, you guys talk (type) like you own the place and rent's past due. Jeez, have a little friendly Christmas Spirit, why don't ya? Life's short. Wake up and smell the roses. It's Miller Time. Everybody's got something to hide except for me and my monkey. Starbucks makes the best coffee in town!, What we have here is a failure to communicate, Mrs Robinson, you're trying to seduce me...OK, punk start countin'... Nobody does it like Sara Lee...YouTube...the Video Distribution Center for Today's Now Generation! OK guys...waiting for the next lonely guy to chime in and put his penny's worth in...it's Tuesday and things are getting mighty slow around here. Smile you're on Candid Camera!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Otis Fodder (talk • contribs).
• Delete. - What's the deal? The BOTS said they banned me several days ago and that I couldn't edit this cute little text space anymore. And here I am back and roaming free with Sprint. Maybe one of you Wikipedians can explain. By the way...is Wikipedia a state of mind or a real place like Nebraska? Just wondering.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Otis Fodder (talk • contribs).

• Is this a case for {{db-author}}, then? Daveydweeb (^chat/_review!) 00:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Daveydweeb...look fella...I'm on your side...just go about your merry way and let the grown-ups handle this...thanks!
• Delete... my Mom said "Delete as subject does not meet WP:BIO criteria." Gotta listen to Mom.--Isotope23 03:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no evidence of WP:BIO --Charlesknight 05:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

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.