Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Steven Lasher

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 of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 07:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Steven Lasher

Autobiographical vanity page. Girolamo Savonarola 03:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - IMDb has a listing for him, seems notable enough, John Lasher at the Internet Movie Database. Though it does need some cleanup. Dismas|^(talk) 03:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Vote changed per Girolamo's last few points below. The first two make it sound like Girolamo wants to in some way punish Lasher and his associates for creating articles whether they are notable or not but his last few points are valid. Dismas|^(talk) 22:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - per Dismas, though IMDB is hardly a guarantee of notability. Needs third party sourcing for the soundtrack information, but seems notable to me. -Dawson 04:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Vote changed to Weak Delete per Girolamo Savonarola's information below. While I still think the article could potentially be salvaged, the lack of independent sources, and the degree of notability is such that it would be best served at this time by merging into the other articles cited. -Dawson 18:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it extremely faux pas to write a new article about yourself, notability regardless? I thought the idea was that if you truly are notable, someone else will get around to it eventually, and with better objectivity. Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines, yeah? Girolamo Savonarola 04:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I have a listing at the IMDb too. I certainly have no intention of writing an article on myself in an encyclopedia, however. (Nor would it be notable enough.) Girolamo Savonarola 04:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I have a listing as well, and I while agree, the article is salvagable, ie, could very easily be taken by a serious editor and made into an article of acceptable quality. -Dawson 04:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Some tidyup needed, but it seems to me that this man's technical innovation marks him out (notability-wise) from other low-output directors. The self-promotion does make me tempted to swing towards deletion, but I guess I'd better set that aside. -- BrownHairedGirl 04:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete After reading the results of Girolamo's careful research (thanks!), I'll change my vote to delete. That's not to "punish" the author, but because the evidence no longer allows me assume as much good faith about the potential notability of the subject. --BrownHairedGirl 00:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but drop the creator a note about creating vanity pages. Hbackman 05:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

• Very weak keep. Evidence presented by Girolamo definitely weakens the case for this article, but I still feel that it's keepable. His later points are good ones, but I do object to the idea that misconduct of the article's creator means that we should definitely delete the article here, almost as a punishment (if I misinterpreted that point, please let me know). Hbackman 20:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep, seems notable enough. JIP | Talk 09:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Vote changed to weak delete per evidence below. Note that the author's behaviour is no basis for the deletion of this article, this simply a question of John Steven Lasher's notability. JIP | Talk 16:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• (very) Weak keep, seems notable enough, but only marginally. Lankiveil 11:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC).
• Extremely weak keep. There is a vague notion of notability amongst the vanity. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 12:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC) I was leaning towards weak delete earlier, but based on the comments made by Girolamo Savonarola, I've decided to change my vote to Delete. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 23:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep and cleanup. --Terence Ong 14:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Changed to delete after argument below. --Terence Ong 09:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, based on the following points:

1. Very sizable percentage of user contributions are vanity edits, including all links back to this article.
2. Blatant disregard for vanity guidelines as discussed on Wikipedia:Spam (specifically under "How Not to Be a Spammer" point number one), Wikipedia:Autobiography, and Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines. Especially notable in the light of the fact that he already had a vanity article, Vox Melba Mastering Labs, speedily deleted for this reason and engaged in a vigorous debate with several editors wherein these policy guidelines were linked and thoroughly explained to him. Nonetheless, he has added an article about himself shortly since then.

• Just to clarify for those who have asked above, I bring these points up merely to show that a) the user is familiar with these policies and encountered them before, and b) continues to make a substantial number of edits whose main or only purpose is to highlight himself and his work. Sure the two together are relevant? It's certainly not vandalism, but were this to continue like this substantially longer, it would. I'm concerned, is what. Girolamo Savonarola 23:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

1. Non-notability in regard to the majority of the article - while I have no doubt that he facilitated the commercial availability of classic movie soundtracks, I certainly wouldn't consider such a producer any more or less notable than someone who produces, say, the budget classical music CDs for Naxos, or an assistant director who has worked on big Hollywood films for several years. Its interesting work involving other notable things and people, but co-relation with such things does not confer notability in and of itself. (Were that the case, you could argue the every name ever listed in a playbill, liner notes, or end credits of any creative work counts as a notable entry.) As for the Bernard Herrmann info, it is uncited and has a high probability of conflation as it is an autobiographical article.
2. All of the Vox info relates to companies and divisions founded and run by John Lasher. A quick search on the internet confirms that he runs them in conjunction with the man responsible for his bio on his IMDb page. Furthermore, it seems as though the company was only recently started, which again smells awfully like self-promotional ad-spam. While it is marginally interesting and notable, I believe it would better be served by a brief mention and link in the phonograph cylinder article. Which Mr. Lasher has already done.
3. The Kinopanorama info, similarly, is somewhat interesting, but of his work, it's been barely seen and by his own admission, only one of his three films in this format has been fully completed or screened en-masse. Again, this would be far more appropriately merged as brief mentions in the Kinopanorama article. Which, again, Mr. Lasher has already done.

I simply don't think that the creation of an autobiographical article is proper in any regard, nor do I think that Mr. Lasher qualifies as an encyclopedic subject at the moment. I am willing to concede the latter point, but only if someone other than Mr. Lasher or his associates feels fit to create such an article. IMHO, the case here is very cut and dry and is about vanity and disregard for the policies and guidelines. I think that Mr. Lasher does interesting work and has worked with interesting people, but this alone is hardly enough to warrant an encyclopedia article written by someone else, much less himself. Thank you. Girolamo Savonarola 15:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep as discussed above. The JPS 15:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC) Delete non-notable. Only assertion of notability can be merged into Kinopanorama. The JPS 16:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable, vanity. Nigelthefish 20:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable or, at least, not notable enough to be in an encyclopedia. Marcus22 20:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. We can not keep a page for every person that exists out there. Triage 14:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• I hereby demand that you delete this page about me without further ado. I have read the comments by each of you and am totally disgusted by many of the comments therein. As far as I am concerned, most of you have nothing better to do than to argue amongst yourselves. Other that the moderator, who seems to have some sort of grip on each of you, none of you have any knowledge of my 32-years work in the music and film industries. Obviously none of you have purchased any one of the fifty recordings produced by me, or, for that matter, seen either of the two Kinopanorama films, one of which you deleted from Wikipedia. Lastly, to those of you who stated that IMDB is a vanity site I am sure there administrators would not take kindly to your comments. Entries at IMDB are vetted for authenticity, and only approved after an appropriate investigation is conducted. John Steven Lasher. jslasher@hotmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jslasher (talk • contribs)

none of you have any knowledge of my 32-years work in the music and film industries. Obviously none of you have purchased any one of the fifty recordings produced by me, or, for that matter, seen either of the two Kinopanorama films, -- Sorry that we were unable to pander to your ego. Hbackman 23:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment, simple fact is, an IMDB entry is no guarantee of meeting Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Being able to back up information with reliable sources does. Assuming you actually are Mr. Lasher, I'm sure you could provide independent sourcing (ie, not written by Mr. Sefton-Parke), and a complete discography for the article, and make it potentially worth keeping, instead of throwing a tantrum. The Hotmail address does not lend much credibility, especially when IMDB and other sites have a different email address listed. -Dawson 00:01, 26 March 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.