Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Themanwhofellasleep

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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 23:39, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Themanwhofellasleep

Delete. Is this guy REALLY notable? - Mrdie 19:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Do not delete. Hello. I am themanwhofellasleep's sister and I wrote the article. Notable? Well, fairly. He's written for radio in Britain, and as the article mentions, he is about to have his first novel published (hopefully with a foreword by Julie Burchill). As the article states, the website has been covered in large chunks of the UK press: the Guardian, the Sunday Times, Independent on Sunday, San Francisco Chronicle, Zoo Magazine, Word Magazine and he has a regular column in Time Out London. The reason I added him was that I saw Rob Manuel of B3ta on here, and I figured that if it was good enough for him, it was good enough for Greg. Surely the point of Wikipedia is that it can be far more exhaustive and detailed than other, offline encyclopedia? Dis_embodied (UTC), author of the article}}
  • Do not delete. I'm a big fan of Greg's work, and know many others with similar enthusiasm for it. He is referred to surprisingly often on the internet, occasionally without a link to his site; the page here is useful for more detail. Greg may currently be a somewhat obscure artist, but this will in all likelihood change in the near future with the launch of his book and his continuing media contributions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackjordan334 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 5 October 2005 (UTC), his only edit
  • Do not delete.The question of whether the article falls foul of Vanity Information guidelines has been raised (whether the subject is "Typical" or "Noteworthy"). I would suggest that the subject's activities as outlined are atypical and known to a sizeable community on the web as well as a more general audience via growing media exposure. The subject is therefore "Noteworty". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.69.170 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC), his only edit
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 09:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - not notable, though I would like to see whatever media coverage it claims to have had before making up my mind. The 3 unsigned votes above have suspicious histories. The Land 10:22, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn __earth 10:27, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Clearly knows he is non-notable if he employs sock puppets. -- RHaworth 10:26, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete without even looking at the article. Anything this much sock-supported has to be deleted. — JIP | Talk 10:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If we profiled everyone who's written a novel we'd get 50,000 new articles every year from the NaNoWriMo winners. Ashibaka (tock) 14:23, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, sock-supported and not notable. --Idont Havaname 14:28, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep despite the socks. Yes I am a fan of the site, but I certainly think he/it is notable enough. He has had plenty of press coverage, I can vouch for having seen many of the ones mentioned. See also [1] and the section "What plans does themanwhofellasleep have for the future?" I will try and find more links. Hopefully no one thinks that I'm a sockpuppet :-) the wub "?!" 14:38, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Please find the press articles and add press citations for them to the article. The subject's own web site does not link to them, and a quick search of the on-line versions of the various publications listed turns up no articles. (The only thing that I did find was two sentences about the web site, not the person, in a roundup of events in The Guardian. That's far from the "feature on the site" that the subject says was published.) So far we only have the words of the subject and of several anonymous and pseudonymous editors that such articles exist. Uncle G 15:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Ok, here's an article on the site from the Guardian Guide. Here's a brief article from The San Francisco Chronicle And here's a full page interview with Greg Stekelman from .dot net magazine {you have to scroll down) and a mention of the site in The Clarin of Argentina. Then there's an article from Word Magazine and there is plenty more press available, but not all of it is online. I'll see what I can get from the clippings file to scan in and post on the net. And for those interested, here's the Amazon link to the book that will be released next year. (UTC) Dis embodied 2005-10-10 18:55:23 UTC (according to edit history. Also this user's second vote. Uncle G 01:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC))
    • Aside from the one from the Chronicle, those are not the press articles. They are images from the subject's own web site, which could have been made up using Photoshop for all that we know. They are not from a reliable source, being provided by the subject xyrself. (One only has to remember Jamie Kane to realize that one cannot trust purported press coverage the only evidence for which comes from the subject's own web site.) For similar reasons, "scanned in clippings" from the subject's "sister" are not from a reliable source. I ask again: Please find the actual press articles and add citations for them to the article. Uncle G 01:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Assume good faith. Why would anyone go to that much trouble to fake those press clippings? I personally remember seeing the Grauniad one, and the regular appearances in Time Out. Plus remember not everything is available online, and I doubt these scans will be found anywhere else. In the case of websites I personally believe offline coverage implies greater notability. As for the sockpuppets, you aren't helping. If you want to provide evidence/reasons to keep then please sign up and do so from one account. the wub "?!" 13:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Assuming good faith has no application here. Please read the page that you are referring to and refamiliarize yourself with what it is actually about. It deals with editors contributing to Wikipedia, not with people publishing stuff out in the Big Wide World. That is dealt with in Wikipedia:reliable sources. Your question was already answered in what I wrote above. I once again point to Jamie Kane. Anyone who always uncritically assumes supposed third-party coverage, that is supplied by the subject of that coverage xyrself on xyr own web site rather than from an independent source or the actual third party, to be true, is being far too credulous. Anyone who thinks that people don't make up things and post them on their own web sites is being naive. Looking for multiple sources that are independent from the subject is as much good encyclopaedism as it is good journalism. Uncle G 05:39, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep per above, appears to have enough of a following to be notable. Makenji-san 22:47, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep The whole idea of Wikipedia is to have a large as possible database of information which people will find interesting/relevant. It appears that there must be at least a few people this page interesting/relevant. Guys is this page do young HARM If not thjen why delete it? -Chazz88 22:25, 15 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.