Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Tsombikos

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 keep. John254 14:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Tsombikos

John Tsombikos (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Notability is permanent, and I don't see any reason to consider this person notable for all time. Basically, to my eyes, it's a local news story and no more:

  • Guy gets some local infamy for vandalising walls
  • Gets caught
  • The vandalism and court case is mentioned in some local newspapers.

Previous nomination kingboyk 12:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Strong keep - he has very impressive independent sources & major news coverage. Previous AfD resulted in an (almost) unanimous keep. Look at the sheer volume we have on Banksy, and this guy seems to be the American equivalent ("wannabe" may be a more accurate term). Besides, notability isn't always permanent; it can always be deleted later once nobody cares. Should probably be under Borf though; Banksy isn't under Robert Banks — iridescenti (talk to me!) 12:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    • The difference with Banksy is that he is an acclaimed artist whose works have been selling for "silly money". This Borf fellow is a vandal who got caught. If he's so important and notable, let's see some non-trivial references from papers outside of Washington DC. At the moment, if this guy is notable then so is every other criminal reported in my local papers. --kingboyk 12:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Person has relevancy. Corpx 12:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    • ?? --kingboyk 12:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
      • As the references/links show, person was mentioned directly in several media outlets. This makes him notable. Corpx 12:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
        • All of them local or web based, so far. Perhaps I should create a fully referenced article on a burglar or traffic law violator from my area to demonstrate the nonsense of considering a local vandal notable. --kingboyk 12:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
      • There are lots of other "graffiti artists" in this category. Most of the others seem even less notable than this guy. Corpx 13:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
        • See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. The existence of articles on less notable people is a reason to nominate them for deletion too, not a reason to keep. --kingboyk 13:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. There's something wrong with the tone of the article, though. Somehow pseudo-encyclopedic. BTLizard 13:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, frankly, I'd rather have more articles on people of local interest, not less. Our purpose is to inform people about things they don't already know about, after all, so why limit it to people everyone's already heard of? This guy got non-trivial media coverage, so we have enough information for an article, and just because the papers are local doesn't make them any less reliable. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment - one of those "local papers" is the Washington Post — it's not like it's the Tottenham & Wood Green Journal. All the reasons for deletion given by the sole person arguing for delete are variations on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, aside from the novel argument of "all the sources for this are on the web" as a reason for deletion — iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Frivolous nomination, based on a misunderstanding of the notability criterion. Notability is permanent in the sense that "If a topic has multiple independent reliable published sources, this is not changed by the frequency of coverage decreasing. Thus, if a topic once satisfied the general notability guidelines, it continues to satisfy it over time.". Sourced once, sourced forever. Stammer 16:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Borf meets the notability guidelines for independent sources. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. My friends and I in California know about Borf and have talked about him, and we aren't (all) graffiti artists or anything. He is notable in various circles nation (if not world) wide. He's not some trivial local graffiti artist. Ungovernable ForcePoll: Which religious text should I read? 03:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Stammer Iridescenti and others. All it would have taken is a moment to read those references or external links to see the sort of impact Borf had. --JayHenry 17:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Borf is someting that everyone living in DC is aware of. The Washington Post has written on the Borf saga. This should not be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 156.33.8.203 (talk) 19:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC).
  • Keep this guy is clearly notable, he's been in numerous newspapers besides the Washington Post --AW 22:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment I added newspaper articles in Raleigh as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Awiseman (talk • contribs) 16:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC).
  • Keep notable in DC and in the progressive graffiti world-- "BORF" rather than tsombikos would definately be more appropriate, as "BORF" is more than the one member-- though this is the name most associated with "BORF"-- regardless, "BORF" (more accurately, the BORF Brigade) worked with the GRL, who -are- the forefront of graffiti (the GRL's is a scant article, definately needs to be fleshed out) David 23:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, clearly notable and meets WP:BIO guideline. RFerreira 06:16, 5 May 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.