Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David McJonathan-Swarm

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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  10:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David McJonathan-Swarm

Vanity, Non-notability ExplorerCDT 16:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

This article, which in the end is nothing more than a repetition of User:D C McJonathan, is a vanity piece. It was started by a "Louise C", which I think is a sockpuppet, considering the subject's mother's name is Louise, and Louise C's only contributions have been to articles about McJonathan, and his equally non-notable buddies (save one, perhaps). Coincidence? Probably not. It smacks of vanity. Google shows this subject to be completely without any shred of notability, as the only results on Google are wikipedia clones, the user's contributions to Wikipedia and to Find-A-Grave, and a few quotes in an article/obituaries about one-dead, semi-notable friend. This person is not notable any more than being the hanger-on of someone remotely notable. User's contributions to television and radio are over-exaggerated, largely unverifiable and we don't put every possible game show contestant on wikipedia, or else we'd have 200,000 jeopardy contestant articles for example. So in terms of policy, I don't think this article meets the criteria for inclusion of a biography, violates the anti-vanity policy, and the subject is non-notable. I'd recommend this be moved to the User Page for D C McJonathan, but it's largely already there. —ExplorerCDT 16:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, as nom. —ExplorerCDT 16:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:VAIN -- Whpq 17:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable broadcaster, among other things. Remember that WP:VAIN states, "vanity by itself is not a basis for deletion, but lack of assertion of importance is." TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 17:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: 1.) can you find any mentions of his radio work aside from his own self-statements? 2.) Lack of assertion of importance...um, how about non-notability? While vanity isn't sufficient reason alone, the vanity policy does act in conjunction with other criteria and policies, as I have stated here, first you should reread WP:VAIN and then I think you should reconsider your vote. —ExplorerCDT 17:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Lack of verifiability is a basis for deletion, and was emphasised in the nomination. How are you proposing that readers verify the contents of this article? The only references that it gives are to a web site run by the subject, to the subject's autobiography on another self-submission web site, and to an obituary notice that the subject paid to have run in the New York Times. Uncle G 18:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    • There was a paid notice in the New York Times but the obituary was editorial by Mitchell Owens. Doc ♬ talk 01:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: he's notable. Bubba ditto 17:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment could you elaborate on that? --Abu Badali 23:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom ST47 18:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• The only sources cited are the only sources that appear to be available: the subject's own autobiography. There's no evidence that it has been peer reviewed and fact checked. I've attempted to cross-check a few randomly selected things from the autobiography with sources other than the subject xyrself, and come up empty-handed. The quotation at Wikipedia:Autobiography#The_problem_with_autobiographies is apposite. Readers only have the subject's own word for any of this. Delete. Uncle G 18:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I considered listing this for deletion myself when I fist saw it and could care less on the outcome except for the spirit of vendetta with which it was proposed. This was one of two attacks by the nom after I disagreed with his interpretation of Wikipedia:Categorization of people#Ordering names in a category where he interprets that the exception should be the rule. He has ranted, shouted and threatened on my talk page to block me when all that I have tried to do is follow the guideline above. He has also listed me for RfC without even meeting the requirements of 2 persons trying to first resolve the issue on talk pages. If anyone cares for newspaper and TV Guide quotes from the 1970s I could dig them out. The laughable part of this whole hype about nobility and the "de" is that the "de" is a coined use in his name anyway, it was not a part of the original Günzburg heritage. I knew the man, was a significant contributor to the article, added the images and placed it in and expanded the family list. If you will read both of our talk pages you will, I believe, see where the nom is coming from. He allows for no flexibility or consensus as he already knows what is right. Doc ♬ talk 21:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment to Comment. Sorry, Doc, but don't take it personal, but after you annoyed me by not following the rules, I scratched the surface...and found you have left behind a whole bunch of vanity articles and other fluff. It's not vendetta, it's just cleaning house. —ExplorerCDT 23:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply What I take exception to is that unless you make the rules, it is you that have not followed the Wikipedia guidelines, IMO. You have not met the standards required for the RfC above, you have challenged the value of my contributions, when you have been here twice as long, with fewer edits and more than half of your contributions have no edit summaries. Doc ♬ talk 01:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
    • That's sorta slicing hairs, Doc. Once you subtract your vanity articles...and I don't think my near 2626 edits are all that shabby when compared to your 2477....given that you claim to have been here longer and I had a 15-month hole in my activity due to a little participation in a war. Ounce for ounce, I'm more productive, and seem to be better at reading comprehension and counting. —ExplorerCDT 03:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Once again you miss the point entirely. And you claim to be "better at reading comprehension and counting." Not. My claim above was that you have been here twice as long as I and your current edit count is 3632 edits and mine is 3679 edits. But again, that is not the point, in both of your responses above you fail to acknowledge your own failure to follow guidelines. None the less, thanks for fighting for our country. Doc ♬ talk 05:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Yeah, in the end, this isn't about you not following guidelines or me, it's about whether the article (herein the point of discussion) is worthy of inclusion or deletion. This isn't the place for our petty battles, and your seeking to justify your continuing incorrectness.—ExplorerCDT 07:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete The entry reeks of original research. For example, how can one know that this person's "name was submitted to The Guinness Book of World Records for being the first to break the record of the largest number of call ins to a radio talk show on WCAU in Philadelphia" unless one were involved somehow in that submission? If he had made it into the book, that would be more obviously notable, but the listing of the mere fact that his name was submitted makes me think this is basically a vanity, promotional, or advocacy page, of a sort wikipedia can do without. Uucp 22:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — per Uncle G. Dionyseus 02:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The article is well written, but when you get to pay attention to the contents, you note it's nothing more than the author's resume. His life achievements were not influential to anyone's life at all. Looking into the article's history page, it's possible to notice that all non-cosmetical contributions were made by McJonathan-Swarm himself, just like in the article about his (imho) equally non-notable mentor, Edgar de Evia. --Abu Badali 23:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per Abu Badali, with one caveat. The article is in my opinion quite poorly written. I've tidied it up some (largely by rewriting/deleting much of the fluff) but it really should be deleted outright. And I think Uucp has a point on the original research, which seems to be a huge problem with all of the articles written by the subject as well.DCB4W 03:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons given above. -- Hoary 07:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep as it meets the requirements of WP:BIO. I also hesitate to say this as I like to assume good faith, but I cannot accept this as a good faith nom when the nominator has been verging on the uncivil in his dispute with D C McJonathan, what with the terse comments (i.e. "you're out" and "Do you get the friggin' drift already"), shouting (i.e. "YOU ARE WRONG"), unwarranted accusations of vandalism, and the such (see D C McJonathan and Nicolas de Gunzburg). If the article should be nominated, it should not come from someone who is in the middle of a somewhat heated dispute with the subject editor. Agent 86 21:22, 27 August 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.