Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Johnson Leyba

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. Majorly 16:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Steven Johnson Leyba

Steven Johnson Leyba (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Artist performing and promoting an obscure method of painting that seems to only be notable within a small niche crowd. Notability not asserted beyond a single magazine article. Bunch of indie press, but it's questionable insofar as that goes. Dennisthe2 09:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - fails WP:BIO as far as I can tell. MER-C 09:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete, as far as mainstream goes the article fails WP:BIO, the question is if within his circle there is a certain amount of notability if not notariety Alf photoman 16:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment relating at least as closely here, copied from where i first placed it on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexpressionism, regarding the same principal contributor.

_ _ I note that i suggested that some of Rebecca/Undream's related work "Reeks of n-n and the need for self-promotion" in my ProD of an intimately related article, before i learned of

_ _ her claim to be married to a colleague & apparent sympathizer of Steven Johnson Leyba, or

_ _ the deletion of her absurdly fantastical, nearly fact-free, and "reknown"-claiming WP autobio.

_ _ (Was i wrong in not responding to her claim that

...for you to say that creating an article about him and his work is akin to "self promotion" is completely unfair and also completely untrue, as I am not him

bcz i assumed that i'd have merely been rubbing salt in the wound if i had said this?:

_ _ Encouraging promotion of yourself by those who are trying to break the same new ground that you are, or by your or their lovers or leisure-time buddies, is clearly self promotion.

_ _ The same effect results from one's failure to make it clear to those same people that their doing it (even without your approval) is a bad thing, because it would make you reek of a need for self promotion, or for what is indistinguishable from it, and thus reek of lack of notability.)

_ _ Also note that her claim to me to be

still learning and fine tuning my wikipedia skills

may be disingenuous in light of her nearly 200 edits starting 2 full years ago, and

I am more than willing to rectify any technical mistakes

may be at least weasel-wording in light of her blanket rv 24 minutes earlier (re Leyba, the apparent principle exponent of Sexpressionism), where i

_ _ added {{ProD}}, which she was of course entitled to remove (-- i naively suggested she leave it in place while addressing my criticisms, and in order to perhaps forestall its nomination to AfD by a third party which in fact came about 2 hours after her reversion.)

_ _ retained (only) in comments, with suggestions on how to possibly make them acceptable, various instances of tangents, unencyclopedic vagueness, lack of verification, and predicting the future, and

_ _ made, indeed, technical corrections (that she discarded) like lower-casing "Beadwork" and un-wikifying the self-link that she should have remembered was implied by lking to the Rdr that she also created.

--Jerzy•t 19:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Notice: The same principal (or at least major) contributor's work is the subject of these AfDs:Template Template:Rebecca (or User:Undream) AfDs initiated by Jerzy•t 19:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

2007 January:

1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Kasner, actually 4 AfDs on one AfD sub-page, including also
   1. Stephen Kasner WORKS: 1993 - 2006
   3. Dwid Hellion
   4. Scapegoat Publishing
2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Johnson Leyba
3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexpressionism

Long closed:

1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebecca Kasner

• In light of the above notices, please be advised that I was unaware of these. Please assume good faith in this regard, and remember that deletion of this article is without prejudice to recreation: if the subject(s) meet WP criteria, they can be recreated. --Dennisthe2 22:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom. Also, she is promoting her husband's work, so it's semi-self promotion ,which falls under my "NO VANITY" rule. MiracleMat 08:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• Note per AfD Wikiquette — The accusation VANITY should be avoided [1], and is not in itself a reason for deletion. Tyrenius 18:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

A WP Policy guideline at WP:COI states that articles which are a conflict of interest (a PC way of saying vanity articles) are AfD worthy if they fail notability guidelines. Such as this and is exactly what that user argued since he also said "as per nom" and the nom was based on notability issues. --Strothra 19:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
My strikethru and bold in the preceding signed contrib is to correct blatant misinformation (this is quickly verifiable beyond doubt) asserted as fact.--Jerzy•t 23:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not questioning "per nom" but "vanity". Please read AfD Wikiquette.
--Tyrenius 20:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Strotha's input sounds (i haven't consulted that specific page beyond the box at its top) like as serious a misreading of the page as is their confusing a guideline with "Policy" (casing as in original). The clearly marked guideline on conflict of interest needs revision to correct a serious fuddlement if it says or means what Strotha attributes to it: with (at most) very few exceptions, lack of notability is reason for deletion without further requirements, and CoI is of interest on an AfD only to the extent that need to rely on sources with a CoI suggests non-notability. If Strotha has given a reasonable interpretation of the page, evidence of that should be posted on WP:VP Policy pg), for the widest possible discussion of how to avoid giving others the same impression.
  --Jerzy•t 23:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  

• I think you're both trying to say the same thing, or at least it ends up as the same thing. Tyrenius 01:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:BIO. --Strothra 19:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete -no indication that the subject in question passes WP:BIO. Reads like promotion. Moreschi ^Deletion! 19:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The nom's "small niche crowd" is actually composed of internationally renowned figures, namely HR Giger, Genesis P-Orridge, and William S. Burroughs. This article needs facts such as list of shows, e.g. at the Museum of Porn in Art, Zurich[2] and the LA show Vaudeville Flesh,(click artists) his books and the video documentary on him,[3], (the latter shown at the 4th Independent San Francisco Film Festival)[4] performances such as the Spoken Word Festival in Stockholm,[5], published texts by him [6] and where he is mentioned such as New York Foundation for the Arts' Arts Wire Current.[7] Tyrenius 20:04, 15 January 2007 (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.