Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. Kristian O'Daugherty (director)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 no reliable third-party sources fails notability guidelines, WP:COI, "Deletion Request from Subject" was counted as a delete also. Dakota 04:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] J. Kristian O'Daugherty (director)

J. Kristian O'Daugherty (director) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Essentially this is a vanity article. Much of the directorial/movie information is not backed up by IMDB. What's left that's provable is that he's just a still photographer and camera operator. Not exactly notable for an encyclopedia article. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 03:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like to note that the IMDB page on this person has extensive credits listed on major film productions. Do you not feel that the photography for X-Men: Last Stand or Poseidon is enough to warrant leaving this person on this site? I believe urther research into the motivations that this articles was recommended for deletion would find that it is based on a personal dispute rather than on professional integrity. Mr. Steve Magruder aka steveietheman erroneously brought attention to himself in 2004 when he conducted an interview citing Mr. O'Daugherty former business partner as a conclusive candidate for The Piano Man in Great Britain. Mr. O'Daugherty corrected the information and raised question concerning the manner which Mr. Magruder handled the public disclosures on WikiNews. The created a great deal of embarrassment for both Mr. O'Daugherty and Mr. Betts. Although Mr. Gorman publicly apologized for posting erroneous material, Mr. Magruder never once offered any public apology. Since Mr. Magruder was Mr. O'Daugherty's former domestiv partner (registered in California) their break up wasn't on the best of terms. Now suddenly, any article that relates to Mr. O'Daugherty's professional work and career is coming under attack by Mr. Magruder. I think it's fair that based on the fact that the article was suggested for deletion by Mr. Magruder, this is simply a retalitory act on his part for being publicly corrected in 2004, and out or personal issues stemming from their 2004 breakup. I would advise reconsidering deletion at this time to avoid possible Wikipedia becoming caught up in what is obviously a personal domestic dispute, otherwise it may be concluded that Wikipedia isn't as objective as it promotes itself being. There could be legal ramifications if this matter isn't handled in the most appropriate manner.

The entire interview from stevietheman regarding the Piano Man can be found under the discussion for article "Piano Man" is not British actor, search down to three leads which supports Mr. Magruder's unscrupulous motivations. --Ilsonlakosky 08:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Piano Man" is not British actor, search down to three leads does seem to have been written solely using Magruder as a source (Magruder is identified as Stevietheman in that article), and did result in a retraction. Whether or not this had anything to do with O'Daugherty is unknown. In any case, the nom made arguments based on Wikipedia policies and O'Daugherty does not seem notable according to guidelines. Finally, it is absolutely forbidden to make legal threats regarding an editor's contributions, as you have. I don't see justification for pulling the nom even if it was done for personal reasons if the article fails basic notability tests. --Dhartung | Talk 09:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm unclear why this is arousing so much emotional rhetoric; anyone would think that it was about Stormfront or Intelligent Design. Nor am I clear what standard of notability this entry is being held to, as none of the "voters" have explained their "votes" beyond throwing slogans around. This is supposed to be a discussion of an article, not a string of votes under the slogan "it's vanispamcruftadvertising".
So far as I can tell from IMDb, and the facts in the article which no-one here has disputed, O'Daugherty meets the WP:BIO crterion: "The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field." (I'd vote against Symbiosis System of Acting, though.) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but how does this record constitution a "widely recognized contribution":
  • two uncredited acting roles
  • three gigs as production assistant (which implies anything from gofer to typist to set security)
  • three gigs as still photographer
  • one gig as a camera operator
He's received no awards for any of these accomplishments. Who has widely recognized them? Also, IMDB is not an "enduring historical record". There might be notability in being a script doctor on a "blockbuster film" but there are no sources for this claim.--Dhartung | Talk 22:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
This is not the forum for me to respond to all the matters (some true, some untrue) expressed by Ilsonlakosky, but I would ask everyone to evaluate these twin articles the same way they evaluate others, hopefully objectively. I don't believe IMDb supports the directorial assertions, but please correct me if I'm wrong. Also, it would seem odd that we are to create articles for individuals who are just beginning to get cinematic work for still photography. I'm open to convincing on this article, but I don't see anything that's notable for an encyclopedia article. However, I'm 100% certain that Symbiosis System of Acting must go as clear "vanispamcruftadvertising". Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 14:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Another nugget for consideration: The article currently says "O'Daugherty won recognition with his documentary, New Madrid: Tears of a Princess". When entered into Google, Yahoo and Live.com searches, no independent verification of this film can be found. This is but a small part of what led me to nominate this as essentially a vanity piece. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 15:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Try MySpace. Maddy626 09:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete both per nom --rogerd 15:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Based on stevietheman's arguments, I still disagree, however, I will delete the O'Daugherty article myself, since I did contribute it. Although on the "Other Works" page of the IMDB page in question, there are several listings which outline his accomplishments. Still, there is a double standard being used for Symbiosis System. If that article is deleted, then Wikipedia would have to delete the entire catagory of Acting Methods, since Symbiosis is an established acting method. Recommendation to clean it up might be taken as more reasonable, but not deletion. The article does outline and detail an acting method that isn't a copy from other methods and is original. How do you gage the criteria for adding or deleting an "acting method?"

It stands to reason that stevietheman's credibility in this matter would come into question since it's been cited that serious errors have been made within the Wikinews, which should be held to higher standards of reporting. I still believe this to be an abuse of position, however that will be resolved with the deletion.

However, if Symbiosis System is deleted, then every article under Acting Methods should be scrutinized and deleted under the same grounds. --Ilsonlakosky 16:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I just did a Google search with "Symbiosis System of Acting" -wikipedia and nothing turned up. Please read Wikipedia:No original research. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 17:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Whatever happened on Wikinews last year (not 2004), it has no bearing on this process. How we gauge inclusion of an "acting method" or any other article is the same -- using notability, verifiability, and reliable sourcing. A method's creator is a [[WP:PS|primary source and not sufficient to establish notability. --Dhartung | Talk 22:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should visit www.jaykofilms.com and review the Acting 101 page that is online. There is an expansive discussion of Symbiosis including the history etc. However, a third party resource... would inclusion in IMDB not serve to indicate that O'Daugherty is a notable person considering that the criteria for inclusion on IMDB is recognizable credentials? IMDB doesn't just post information on their website without a long process of verification, etc? They also have very strict guidelines on what is acceptable, even on their "Other Works" pages. --Ilsonlakosky 18:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

You really think we're going to reconsider IMDB just to give this vanity bio a pass? Come on. --Dhartung | Talk 22:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

RE: "Legal Threats": The statement made was not a direct threat of legal action. It was stating a fact. Were I in O'Daugherty's shoes, I am sure that I'd be exploring my options, as anyone would, especially considering prior abuse and misinformation posted on WikiNews by Magruder that did in fact cause a great deal of embarrassment for O'Daugherty organization. But a "threat of legal action" would be if I stated "I will look into legal option if this isn't handled appropriately". I do believe the exact wording of my previous statement would fail to pass the legal definition of a "legal threat". --Ilsonlakosky 16:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to be dragged into a semantics discussion. If you make another threat, you'll be blocked. I'm placing a warning on your user page so that administrators know you have been warned. --Dhartung | Talk 22:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


I believe this dispute needs to be mediated by experts who understand IMDB, the film industry, acting, acting methods, acting schools, etc. It's becoming obvious that few in this dispute have any real knowledge of the business and what establishes a "notable" career. This has become a pissing contest with no end in site. I request that this matter be decided by a panel with expertise in this particular field. I'm sure that isn't an unreasonable request. Mediation by knowlegable parties would be the ONLY acceptable resolution to this dispute. Additionally, since pursuant to Dhartung argument in my Talk, I must also request that stevietheman's coments and participation in this discussion be striken as he is O'Daugherty former domestic partner (as previously raised) and therefore by the definition Dhartung has provided me, would be a conflict of interest. --Ilsonlakosky 01:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

This is not a "pissing match" or a "dispute". This is a standard discussion of notability, which by Wikipedia procedures may be initiated by any editor. The result is based on the consensus opinion of all editors, any of whom may participate. If you feel that procedurs have not been properly followed, and the article is deleted, you may initiate a deletion review which will determine whether there was any flaw in the process. The result of a DRV is usually a procedural AFD, leading to another discussion like this one.--Dhartung | Talk 19:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Notability

Notability is not judged by Wikipedia editors directly. The inclusion of topics on Wikipedia is a reflection of whether those topics have been included in reliable published works. Other authors, scholars, or journalists have decided whether to give attention to a topic, and in their expertise have researched and checked the information about it. Thus, the primary notability criterion is a way to determine whether "the world" has judged a topic to be notable. This is unrelated to whether a Wikipedia editor personally finds the subject remarkable or worthy.

January 19, 2003 Courier-Journal Article ID: lou2003012007205388: Director hopes film lures bit of Hollywood to Louisville

Included in that article are references to my work on several major films, and supports my status as a professional and NOTABLE filmmaker. The article written by Nancy Rodriguez was supported by interviews and research by the journalist.

Contrary to stevietheman and Dhartung's claims, I have read the article and the definition of "Notability" as provided by Wikipedia. The inclusion of this article is supported the article mentioned above as my reputation as a filmmaker within the Louisville businss community was sufficient to provide me support during my productions, including from major business leaders based entirely on my name recognition. By the very definition of "Notability" whether on a local, national or international level, my contributions to the film communities in Louisville, Florida, London, Los Angeles, NYC have provided me respect based on name recognition within the communities. International recognition will come as a result of the upcoming release of Midnight Snow. However, I have become aware that there is an effort to promote regional and locally related articles. If nothing else, the article would qualify for a Louisville based circulation based on local notability resulting from the article in the Louisville Courier-Journal (which is an internationally recognized publication).

Regarding Symbiosis System of Acting, this is an "Acting Method" no different than any method taught to actors, such as the Meisner Method. Since I have already qualified by argument for inclusion of this article, Symbiosis System of Acting would qualify by default, just as the articles relatd to Meisner's techniques. However, the category is called "Acting Methods". An acting method by itself doesn't become notable. It is notable through a grassroots effort through teaching. 183 students of acting have been taught this method since 2004. That isn't necessarily a small number considering that it was only developed into a formatted program during the past decade. That doesn't make it any less important than Meisner or Strausberg which has been taught for several decades with an established following. But the definition of Acting Method would qualify Sysbiosis System's inclusion as an article about Acting Methods because it is exactly that... an Acting Method. Exclusion of more contemporary techniques such as Symbiosis System, Dawn Wells Film Acting Boot Camp or Bob Fraser's "You Must Act" programs would make the category on Wikipedia's Acting Methods incomplete since most of the Meisner, Stanislavsky and Strausberg techniques are relevent to stage acting only and are mostly outdated. There are too many qualifying techniques being used today in film acting that under the guidelines you are addressing would be disqualified and would thereby render Wikipedia as an out-dated resource.

Qualification of an article is not left for interpretation by Editors. However, I do feel that the Editors, who are not attorneys, should consider that by interpreting written policy, they are setting a precedence that would have to be followed very carefully on all future articles. As courts are careful about "interpretating" law, Editors and Administrators need to be careful about interpreting policy, otherwise Wikipedia could quickly become an outdated and unreliable source of information based on unnecessary exclusion of so many relevent articles.

Vanispamcruftisement

Vanispamcruftisement (IPA: /væ.nə.spæm.kɹəf.ʼtaɪz.mənt/; sometimes abbreviated as vanispamcruft or VSCA) is a portmanteau term comprising several editorial faults which some Wikipedians see as cardinal sins: conflict of interest, spam, cruft, and advertisement. The term was coined by Freakofnurture to describe an article nominated for deletion which exhibited all the above properties, being an article apparently created by the owner of a small company, about that company, name-checking the owner of the firm with a brief resume of his skills, and in respect of a company whose products appeared on the face of it to be of strictly limited appeal outside the world of geekdom.

Contrary to steveietheman or Dhartung's claims, neither article qualifies under the above definition. The J. Kristian O'Daugherty article was written by Ilson Lakosky about a film director. There are no services... no company... no advrtisements anywhere, including on my website at www.jaykofilms.com. What any reader is directed to through external links, are pages discussing the film industry, still photography, an extensive resource on acting under the Symbiosis System of Acting, and ten galleries of original, and obviously professional quality photographic work. Everything that any serious artist's website might contain. The reference to JayKO would be no different than referencing Askew in an article about Kevin Smith. They go hand in hand.

The Symbiosis System article doesn't promote any service which payment is expected. In fact, I've noticed that Ilson provided most of the structure of the system in the article, although somewhat incomplete. All information provided to the public about Symbiosis System of Acting allows the reader to apply the system without having to attend classes or purchase any services, books or materials. In otherwords... Free Use of the acting system by the reader without obligation.

As to my position on the threats of Legal Action, I do find Ilson's remarks somewhat inappropriate. Any legal action would have to be made by me alone and that is not my objective. I'd prefer this matter be resolved without further disruption and in a professional and respectful manner. If it cannot be resolved through these debates, then Wikipedia's adminstrators were wise enough to provide Dispute Resolution when conflicts arise. Hopefully we can all come to a fair agreement on how this should be handled without having to engage futher procedures.

I will stand by my opinion that the Editors need to apply reasonable standards when reviewing articles and submitting them for deletion. What may be appropriate for one category may not be for another. You should consider each topic carefully and apply standards that relate directly to the subject matter being adressed in the article.

God bless and Happy Holidays to everyone this season. --Jkris97 18:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep If all of this turnes out to be true. But if all that can be said for sure is that he is a camera photagrapher, then Delete -- Dasnedius 18:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Perhaps a reasonable compromise would be for me to directly cooperate with one of the editors to rewrite the articles to comply with the standards being adressed here. Perhaps the Symbiosis System of Acting article could be rewritten with a focus on contemporary film acting methods covering many of the programs currently available. Just a suggestion... --Jkris97 18:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Jkris97 (assuming you are the subject of the article), while your cooperation would be appreciated if the article is kept, keeping our WP:COI and WP:AUTO policies in mind, the question being discussed here is whether your articles meet our notability standards. If you could supply reliable third-party sources which discuss your film contributions or the "Symbiosis System", that would help us make a decision. Your own defense of your personal view of your own notability is not sufficient, no matter how hard you've worked or how proud you are of those accomplishments. Many people do good work without becoming notable by our guidelines.
    • Nevertheless, we need objective sources, not claims. The Courier-Journal article (registration only) seems to be primarily about the featurette Where the River Ends, which does not have an IMDB entry. (available text: "A murder. A dream. A sense of deja vu. And the bobbing and weaving of a man trying to alter his destiny. It was all captured on film in Louisville last week, as ArtzMo Productions LLC did its first short feature film, Where the River Ends. Yesterday, cast and crew hustled around Primizie Pizza Pasta & Philly Steaks at Theater Square, preparing to") Googling "where.the.river.ends louisville" brings up only your site and somebody's guestbook. There is no "daugherty" or "o'daugherty" anywhere on the Kentucky Film Office website. I'm going the extra mile here and I'm just not finding anything significant that has been written about you or the productions you say you've been involved with, which suggests they are independent efforts that have not achieved notability.

I'm not sure if the Kentucky Film Office would be a reliable source either, since according to information on the internet O'Daugherty lives and works in Burbank and West Hollywood. --Ilsonlakosky 20:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

    • The Kentucky Film Office does not provide specific information about productions past. Since WTRE was produced in January 2003, the KFO would have no interest in maintaining information on that. The most reliable source of information available to the public for the film industry would be the IMDB. The public, including yourself would not be privy to many of the databases resources that a working professional would be. However, my IMDB page, although not complete in its updating yet, provides clear support that my work isn't simply on a "local" level. The work I've accomplished can be seen by typing in ANY of the titles listed on my IMDB page. As to the documentaries etc, IMDB includes the "Other Works" page where projects that either didn't get aired/released (such as Pilot Episodes) or stage work can be added. Their criteria for submission is very strict (more so than Wikipedia) and can take weeks, months, sometimes years before they can verify and add those credits. Anyone with extensive knowledge of or who works in the film industry would understand this. So the most reliable source that Editors could use would be the IMDB for film related articles. This would be more reliable than Google or Yahoo, since I've done searches myself on my name, and depending on how I spell it, or type it, will come back with different results. But typing my name in IMDB comes back immediately with a one page result. --Jkris97 20:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Finally, "International recognition will come with the release of Midnight Snow is a fine sentiment, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball -- in the rare cases that we write about future events, we must have really worthwhile material from very reliable sources. --Dhartung | Talk 18:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Dhartung, if you actually read the article in the Courier-Journal, although the article is about Where the River Ends, it references other work that the journalist discovered that I worked on, including Script editing on Thelma & Louise, Con Air, and working in production management for Stuart Little and Selena. The work you see currently on my IMDB page reflects work since that article so she would not have had access at the timke the article was published. Perhaps in some ways, Ilson may have miscategorized the article and maybe it should be moved to Photography or Film Photography, since work as a still photographer on Superman Returns, X-Men: The Last Stand, Poseidon, Entourage etc would be considered as notable on such blockbuster films, as confirmed by information on IMDB itself. You don't get hired to do still photography on a $100 million PLUS film unless your accomplishments and your talents qualify you. Still Photographers produce the material that is used for the marketing of a film such as in Billboards, cover-art, Posters, websites, print publications etc. There's too much at stake for a studio to hire anyone in that position without the qualifications and outstanding credentials that would justify risking millions of dollars invested in the production on that person. This is where "reasonable application" of the guildelines needs to be applied. Under these circumstances, this discussion should not be about deletion of an article, but perhaps reclassifying the article appropriately. However, my statement above stands when it comes to the Symbiosis System article. --Jkris97 19:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
    • As to whether I am the "subject" of the article, that is one area that stevietheman would be able to confirm since I have used this user ID even back when he and I were still partners. So that should not be a question needing to be addressed extensively. --Jkris97 19:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
      • In reviewing Wikipedia's category of Acting Techniques, there are just 5 entries (including Symbiosis System of Acting). In reality, there are many more techniques and programs than those 5. Based on the arguments of Dhartung and others, I can understand why there are so few. If these same guidelines are being applied to other entries, then Wikipedia will never become a reliable resource of information on this particular subject. Just the Dawn Wells Film Actors Boot Camp or the Bob Fraser programs would be disqualified as "spam", yet both of those programs are valuable to the CONTEMPORARY film acting community and information about these programs should be available under any datebase or informational resource that includes Acting Techniques or Methods as a category. Each are different, just as Symbiosis System is. But just like Symbiosis System, they lack the history, but that doesn't make them less important than Meisner or Stanislavsky. In fact, for film acting, Symbiosis, Wells and Fraser's programs are more important because they are part of the evolution of acting itself and a part of the history of modern film acting. The arguments being applied to this debate is based on "opinions" rather than an understanding of film or theatre. Just like you wouldn't go to a Psychiatrist if you need brain surgery, you also wouldn't go to a computer tech if you want to understand filmmaking, theatre or photography. When making decisions about film, theatre or artistic articles and categories, Wikipedia needs to use editors and adminstrators who are competent in this fields to make those decisions rather than rely upon editors who lack any true knowledge (or interest) in these areas. Would Britannica hire computer experts to draft, edit or make decisions regarding Film Editing? No, they would hire someone with direct experience and knowledge of film editing. Sorry Dhartung, but your computer experience doesn't make you an expert in this particular category. --Jkris97 20:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Dhartung, I regret that you have made this personal with your debates in the associated forum. It's clear that your objective is the deletion of both of these articles with prejudice. Based on your arguments, there's no question of that. You keep referring to "notibility" and yet in the other forum (J. Kristian O'Daugherty) you fail to recognize the reliability of a source such as IMDB which was purchased by Amazon.com but operated as as an independent entity. Read their guidelines, Dhartung. As I made clear in the other forum, if the articles need to be rewritten or reclassified then so be it. But you can not accurately claim that my career hasn't been notable under the definitions you have offered. I would love to see you try and get a job as a still photographer with Warner Brothers shooting stills for any $100 million PLUS film production. You wouldn't even make it past the front gate. I have five of those productions under my belt. So please consider what your motivation is in this, and look a little closer at the source of my credits on the internet (IMDB) and demonstrate to me the reason why IMDb should not be taken as a serious nor reliable source. My work is deplayed on any website that includes X-Men: The Last Stand, Superman Returns, Poseidon, The Queen and Babel. Could you make such a claim?--Jkris97 22:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or Delete per Dasnedius. Just H 18:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Deletion Request from Subject

It pains me to come to this decision, but I personally prefer not to have Symbiosis System of Acting nor my name associated with these discussions further. I appreciate that Ilson Lakosky considered me accomplished enough to draft an article documenting my film work and my development of the Symbiosis System of Acting. However, based on these discussions, I am request that all traces of my name and my acting program be immediately removed from Wikipedia, including all discussions in these forums. I will also expand that to include future articles that may include my name or my work, even if it passes Dhartung and Stevietheman's definition of "Notable".

At this time, I am finding ABC, CNN and MSNBC's questions concerning the value of Wikipedia and WikiNews more accurate than I prefer based on two very unpleasant experiences I've had, both centered around the decision on one of this organization's editors. Therefore, I ask that my request be immediately implemented without delay. --Jkris97 00:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

    • I am sorry you have found this unpleasant. There was never any such intent, of course. As a matter of policy it is impossible to erase your username and associated contributions, and an articles for deletion debate is permanently archived for maintenance purposes. It is also impossible for us to honor your request that you never appear in the encyclopedia, for instance, in any future film credits that may be included in articles, or to guarantee that no article will ever appear in the future. Nor do we have a process for deleting articles at a subject's request, otherwise it might be impossible to write articles about notorious or unpopular public figures. I am certain that the closing administrator will count your request appropriately as a delete vote. --Dhartung | Talk 05:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and subject's request. Montco 02:55, 25 December 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.