Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh Warner (second nomination)

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. Krimpet (talk) 04:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Josh Warner

Josh Warner (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This was previously deleted through AfD. DRV overturned in light of a new evidence. Please consult the DRV before commenting here: the question is "Do the credits of celebrity photographs count as reliable sources of the gentleman's notability?" This is a procedural relisting, so I abstain. Xoloz 14:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Reads like Mr Warner himself wrote the page. Corpx 18:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete vanispamcruftisement. 65.241.15.131 21:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. If Mr. Warner is a notable jeweler, certainly there is some reliable source backing this up; currently, however, the article contains no such sources. *** Crotalus *** 21:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Interesting patrons, but come on. Have at least one source that works. nn. Sens08 00:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep -Mr Warner is getting quite the name around the fashion industry. He is as deserving of being included as a lot of people found in Wikipedia. Greetingsfromla 10:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC) — Greetingsfromla (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep - (if I get a vote). So, I would argue that in a visual information age, the definition of what constitutes a valid source should not be restricted to written material. Clearly a radio or TV news personality would be considered notable simply because they are featured on a public medium, so why should a jeweler who is very well know among celebrities and other jewelry industry types not be considered notable? If you were to argue that Josh Warner is not notable because you have not heard the name, I would suggest that you visit the jewelry section of Barneys in New York, Boston, Chicago ... or perhaps Traffic in Los Angeles or Louis in Boston. It is easy to dismiss someone as not notable in an industry that you have no affiliation to, but to a collector (like myself) or others in the industry Josh Warner is clearly notable. Shaunco 21:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I don't really see any problem with sourcing from non written sources, but this isn't done in the article. Editors can say that he is the most improtant person in the jewelry world, but without a single source to back it up it doesn't do all that much. --Daniel J. Leivick 22:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Of course you can chime in, Shaunco, but I think you're missing the point. Most of us can't visit the jewelry sections of Barneys in New York (or Boston or Chicago or Dallas or... ) because we don't live there, so we rely on independent, verifiable, third-party sources. I would certainly judge non-written sources, such as photographs, along with written words, but where are those photographs? The article reads like an advertisement for his business instead of an encyclopedia entry about the person himself, and as I write this there isn't a single photo of anything or anyone on the page. The only cited source is about his grandfather's accounting firm, for goodness sake, and that's incomplete (and it's irrelevant to the subject anyway). It's a shame to waste a successful deletion review decision about non-written sources by not providing such sources in the article. Link to photos, upload photos, find magazine articles about Warner – give us sources before time runs out. Wikipedians are a fair bunch, but there aren't many options for unsourced entries. KrakatoaKatie 09:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok Katie, that was really harsh. If you look at the original deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_May you will see that I posted a nice sized list of photos - which is what led to this secondary review, and these photos ARE the topic of discussion.Shaunco 03:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry you think I was harsh, and I did see that list in the DRV discussion – but I and other editors are trying to tell you that you need to put these sources in the article, not just here or the DRV page. For example, the article claims Morrissey wears the jewelry; provide an EL to a photo of Morrissey wearing Josh Warner jewelry, and so on down the list of celebrity claims. Does Barneys sell online? If so, provide an EL to that page. If nothing changes, the closing admin may delete this article again with a statement like "article remains unsourced after deletion review," and we don't want that to happen if it's not necessary. WP:EL and WP:CITE will help, and any of the commenters here, especially me, will be glad to help or answer questions. KrakatoaKatie 04:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Thank you, that is exactly what I needed (guidance). I didn't think I was allowed to modify the page while it was in deletion review. I have added a bunch of sources and will continue to add more as I find them. Shaunco 04:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete How on earth do I know that the jewelry in the images is made by Warner? I'm not questioning your integrity, Shaunco, I do believe that they are. But how do I know for fact, and how can I prove that without going to Warner's website? Lacks verification by reliable sources of notability. The burden is on the author, not the reader so if I can't get to a big city to check out out his boutique displays then frankly that isn't my problem. Teke 20:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • All of the photos on wire image show Josh Warner, with the jewelry AND the celebrities wearing it. That is pretty clear that he makes it (or at least that he is the exclusive seller of it). Also, the photo that is (now back) on the page (from lit magazine) shows Josh in his workshop, hands dirty, making jewelry. I have also added a fifth "further reading" item that is another article that I just found that cites Josh Warner, Good Art HLYWD, and him making jewelry in addition to a block post from Annie Duke that references Josh making jewelry. Shaunco 21:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Shaunco, I and I am sure other editors appreciate your civility and efforts in trying to fit the article for Wikipeida. Now speaking for myself, I just don't see a way to make it encyclopedic. We are trying to build an encyclopedia and I don't believe that this gentlemen, while successful in his industry, merits an article. I have no prejudice against a recreation in the future, but it is my opinion that the article just doesn't work. Teke 01:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Teke, per Wikipedia:Notability (people) under Creative professionals, both the first and third articles hold true ("The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.", "The person has created a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." - see newly added references). Perhaps I should add the {{expert-subject}} to this WP:BIO, as it is clear that you must be somehow involved in the jewelry industry to know who is notable and who is not. I do believe that the whole point of Wikipedia is to allow people to write articles in subjects that they are experts in so that others, who are not experts in the field, can learn... is it not? Shaunco 03:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 01:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. What I want to see is an article in LA Magazine or whatever writing up this guy, not a bunch of photo captions which are very often essentially product placements. The civility and effort of Shaunco are appreciated, but I have to say no. --Dhartung | Talk 07:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
• Zap it immediately per G12. The subject did write the article himself, and it was lifted from his website Ohconfucius 09:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • If the subject wrote it himself, and posted the content on his own website as well as submitting it here under the GFDL, how is it a "blatant copyright infringement"? --Stormie 13:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • This is Josh Warner, founder of Good Art HLYWD. One of my customers told me about this article, so I decided to come here and check it out. I do not have a problem with this article being somewhat copied from my site, how do I go about giving Wikipedia permission to use this content? Josh Warner 21:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete All of the sources listed on the page are primarily first party sources in that they come from the company's website. I need to see something concrete from non trivial secondary sources to properly assert notabiity. --Cyrus Andiron 12:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Cites sources. Seems noteable enough. Billy227, Review my account!! ^{talk contribs sndbx usbx} 14:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep, but tone down the overly praising language. Seems to have enough sources, more than most. Going against my natural deletionist leanings here. Realkyhick 16:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep only the 1 to 10% of it that is notable and sourced (are there no jewelry trade mags? celebrity fashion columns?. Photos of celebrities with artist only acceptable as reference for them as clients. Canuckle 21:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I still don't see any real source aside from some press releases from the subject, being mentioned by Annie Duke doesn't really count towards notability. Having pictures of celebrity wearing jewelry doesn't give us any sourced content in the article and thus doesn't count towards notability in the wiki sense. There are plenty of Jewerly magazines which would have article on the subject if they were notable. --Daniel J. Leivick 21:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Notability through association, plus non-notable.--Whstchy 01:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, I saw his stuff in GQ, and went to Barney's online about a year ago. They had his stuff listed at that time (although it it no longer listed). While I am not a reliable secondary source, I have seen his stuff in Barney's store in New York & LA and at Traffic LA. I now own several pieces of his jewelery. I can't find any sources online other than those referenced in this discussion. Part of the allure of this particular type of product is its scarcity; it is (relatively) hard to get, and it is expensive. If it had tons of publicity and awareness, it would be less interesting to collectors and celebrities who like to have things that other people don't have, and don't know about. Suggest keeping the article, but toning down the flowery language that makes it seem like it was from the artist himself. --Rowantrollope 23:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I removed User:Daniel J. Leivick's clear attempt at retaliation for another wiki user disagreeing with him. User:Rowantrollope is clearly not a single purpose account. User:Daniel J. Leivick also defaced the Rowan Trollope page in return for Rowan's comments on this matter. Also, how can one claim that this users sole purpose on Wikipedia is to comment on the Josh Warner article, when their account has been around for almost 8 months, and the Josh Warner article has only been here for 6 weeks? Shaunco 23:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Notability through association doesn't fly: it doesn't mean a fig, for personal items, whether your customers are celebrities or streetwalkers. Drew Carey's hat, George Clooney's socks, or Lindsay Lohan's underwear don't become famous merely by association with their owners, whether or not you have photographs of them using them. --Calton | Talk 00:54, 23 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.