- Christopher Gutierrez (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)
For the second time in two days the article on Christopher Gutierrez which I created has been deleted. After the first time it was deleted I contacted the maintainer responsible for deeting it to enquire as to the reason for it's deletion, and whilst I had no response the article was deleted a second time. I fail to see a reason for this deletion. Christopher Gutierrez is both an author, and a performer, the article was informative and had more information and references than is evident on many other authors pages, and the fact is if other authors are allowed Wikipedia pages without any debate whatsoever, why is this particular author not allowed a page? He has three published books, one published Spoken Word CD, has completed three 13 date speaking tours of America, and a five date speaking tour of the UK and starting from the 11th January will be the opening act to the Chicago band 2*Sweet on their Winter Tour. He has toured the entirity of Warped Tour as the myspace featured artist, and on top of that used to be in a band which does itself have a wikipedia page. This particular author has achieved far more than many people on this site who have articles about themselves, and I really do fail to see why time and time again the page about him is deleted.MirfainLasui (talk) 14:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: Latest two deletions in log have been per CSD G4, relevant deletion discussion appears to be at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Gutierrez (2nd nomination). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment three self-published books. Can;t judge the rest of this. DGG (talk) 15:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I thought the whole point of wikipedia was to give knowledge to people who seek it. Many a time I have been asked by people why they can't find him on wikipedia, he is worthy of one. Just because he's self-published shouldn't make a difference, if he's causing an impact in todays teenage culture then he is notable. Not many people can get fanbase of 16-24 year olds - a fanbase which are used to going to rock concerts, stage diving and making noise - to actually buy books, read and get room of a 100 of them to stay silent for three hours. Also " A copy, by any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion, provided the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version" which is untrue and therefore shouldn't have been deleted because of CSD G4, we've been adding more information, even a whole new section about his tours and more sources, "credible" references such as interviews and even a review from Chicago Reader. Musical overdose (talk) 15:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Whilst it is true that the books are self published, this does not make them less valuable, less well written than other works. Yes they were self published, but the two full length novels both sold out in an extremely short amount of time, with both now being in their second edition of publishing, and the publishing company he created to publish these novels has two directors, and 17 interns coming from not only all across the USA, but the UK and Australia. It's hardly one man sitting in his bedroom and photocopying pages to staple together and flog to passers by. On top of that, limited numbers of these novels have at times been available in Borders Stores in the states. And as for the complaint that the article did not seem to have enough research or relevence outside of the authors own site would maybe be a reason for deletion if it wasnt hypocritical of a maintainer to suggest it. For example, Irish writer Cecelia Ahern has a wikipedia article. This article has a very very short amount of information on her personal life and writing career, in comparison Gutierrez's article featured an extensive section talking about his writing career, his publishing company, his speaking tours, and his time as a bassist in a band. And a long section about his personal life on top of that. Ahern's article also has only three references (taken from blogs and official sites, like Gutierrez's, and in fact Gutierrez's has references from sources other than those two) and the three external sites were fansite, and her official site, this is what Christopher had (as well as others) and yet for him these weren't apparently valid? Simiarily australian writer Alasdair Duncan has, like Christopher, only two books published, and these two books were, whilst not quite as apparently wrong as being self published, were published by his university,which is hardly the same as being published by an actual publishing company. On top of that he has no references, and the only external sites comprise of his own myspace (he doesnt even have his own official site, whereas Gutierrez has two) and an emailed interview which compares insignificantly to the several published interviews and articles Christopher has, how is his much smaller and less researched article allowed when Gutierrez's isn't? Even bestselling author Phillip Reeve's article is far less reasearched, with few external links and only around 150 words written on the article not including biography. Overall I fail to see why this article is not allowed, his self published books are no less valid as works of literature, his thousands of fans are no less valid, and whilst yes he has committed the apparently heinous crime of keeping an online blog, that blog recieves over 2000 hits a day, and his message board has 800 members espite existing for one month only thus far, and so is just a further example of his popularity and success as an author, and more evidence that he notable enough to be allowed this page.MirfainLasui (talk) 16:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Some of your arguements boil down to WP:WAX, please read it. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 16:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Unsalt and allow recreation. Musical overdose has said that the article is not the same, which is enough for me. If editors still have a problem with it, they should take it to AfD. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs)
- The significant difference between the latest article and the one deleted by AfD is the addition of a reference to this piece in the Chicago Reader. --Stormie (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment After reading WP:WAX I can see whilst a lot of the arguments did boil down to that, it did state the following "(This may be an argument that this article is not bad enough to be speedily deleted; but that does not mean it should be kept." and from the first deletion of the article, it was apparently on speedy deletion, so would this at least be a case for the speedy deletion to be removed? As far as I can see all the apparent problems I've been given can be disupted. Firstly the problem of the books being self published seems a laughable issue as they've still sold out and have been incredibly popular and successful with the many fans of Gutierrez. Secondly, the reason I was given for the first deletion was that it was a vanity/attack article and not only does that seem to be something of an oxymoron (how can an article be both flattery and vanity towards it's subject, and yet the same time an attack on the subject?) it was certainly not an attack on the subject as I'm a fan of his, and as it was merely a description of his works and life I don't see how this could be a vanity article. Lastly was the claim that it read like a press release and was under researched, and again I would disupute this as it was longer than an average article, it feautured a variety of sections and information, and whilst it may have read like a press release that's probably more the result of my writing style apparently coming across that way, and I could attempt to change that style, but that can't be done unless the protection is taken away from this article and I am allowed to reupload it. I really am at a complete loss at understanding why this particular author is not allowed an article, the reasons and excuses given do not seem to justify such a decision.MirfainLasui (talk) 16:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Could you provide some sales figures? If I make ten copies of a book, I can sell out within a day, but that doesn't say anything? How many books did he sell? AecisBrievenbus 16:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- According to the biography on his official site, the first pressing of 1100 editions sold out in the first six months, which is notable. Also, whilst this isn't official info, on his UK tour my friend sold merch for him, and on that five day tour he sold 300 copies of his book. www.deadxstop.com/bio.php
- Endorse deletion; may not have been a G4, but certainly was an A7. The subject doesn't appear to meet the notability guidelines of Wikipedia. AecisBrievenbus 16:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- It's actually rather funny you should make that observation, I'd just checked the notability criteria before realising you'd replied with this, and personally I think he definitely meets the notability guidelines of wikipedia. Firstly there is the basic criteria guidelines. 'Basic Criteria-has been the subject of published secondary source material on a number of occasions, that is independent of the subject.' Firstly, as was referenced in the article I made, an article about him was pubished in the Chicago Reader newspaper, the link is in the deleted article or on www.deadxstop.com/bio.php, one of his Speakings was reviewed and published on an online edition of a newspaper, this was also rerferenced to and linked on the article and can be re-read on the above site. Both these articles are published secondary source material independant of the subject. On top of that online official music site, absolutepunk.net has interviewed him, and this is a huge, popular site, the interview can be found again on the official sites bio page. On top of that, popular pop punk band falloutboy have written and published a song about him, 'Grenade Jumper', which was featured on their Album 'Take this to your grave' and whilst this is not the reason he deserves the article, that is a result of his writing and perfoming skills, it would definitely count as a published secondary source material of which he is the subject. On top of that, there is the additional criteria to be considered. He firstly fits in the grouping of 'Entertainer' based on the following reasons.(Entertainers: actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities:)
'With significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions.' He has a high level of significance as an entertainer, the previously mentioned speaking tours which were a success is proof of this, as is the fact that he's asked to be an opener for a band. Considering the three most recent US tours were long and well attended I would argue that they showed significance, and he has toured a different country in a different continent (the uk) which would suggest success and notability. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. -Very true, he has 800 members on his message board, sold out first editions of both books, he has a very significant cult following, on a photo I took of a poster for one of his UK tours (which if you really need I can probably find somehwere) he was described as a 'cult DIY author. This cult significance is evident by the amount of people who read and comment on his blog, and his tours which despite being self promoted were very well attended. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.- well as the online review of one of his speakings that I previously mentioned said, there are very few speakers out there like him. On top of that, self published or not, he also can be applied to the grouping of author in significatn criteria as his books are read by people across the world (he even has fans in Malaysia) and for over 1400 copies of a self published book to have been sold, I would consider the subject to definitely be notable.MirfainLasui (talk) 17:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Could probably do with a restoration and relisting. I'm not personally convinced that he meets notability criteria, and the article is a very obvious (self?) promotional piece, but he skirts close enough to a few notability criteria that it should probably be considered by an AfD with more than two commenters. --Stormie (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well it's more obviously not a self promotion what with the fact that the subject comes from Chicago, America, and my IP address should hopefully show me as coming from High Wycombe, England. But thank you for considering it/suggesting it for restoration and relisting.MirfainLasui (talk) 20:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: I don't see why he can't have a page, I've seen smaller stub pages with one line of information, there are plenty of less noticeable people with pages and many people with less detailed pages. There are plenty of sources and media for refrences, not to mention many people are willing to help build the page. Sure it would take a while to build a good article but the point of Wiki is to do that together right, the brains of many in the place of one? I don't see why you are repeatedly deleting the page when it is obvious that there is demand for a page, there is the backing and reason for it. At the end of the day Wiki is going against its own principals and ethics, which is very disappointing. I appreciate that the staff of the site work hard to weed out inappropriate pages, and the articles with are below standard but I also believe that you need to give time for the development of a good article instead of repeatedly deleting it. Xosammielsxo (talk) 21:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- User's first edit. AecisBrievenbus 21:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- I find it offensive that because I'm a new user my opinion is somehow worth less than.I have never felt capable of starting an entire article from scratch and I am not too sure about how to work edits, but to suggest that because its my first edit I some how am less able to comment is ridiculous and down right rude. I thought the point of this page was to discuss and debat the article and not personally attack users. Xosammielsxo (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion While the the number of commenters in the last AfD was low, I can't endorse sending this back for rediscussion on the grounds that, let's face it, it would never in a million years pass an AfD, whether there are 3 participants or 3 million. 1100 copies of a self-published book is clearly something he's proud of, so good for him, but that's pathetically low by encyclopedia-article standards. WP:BK pretty much completely rules out self-published books (and with good reason), except a couple of examples by truly famous authors, which doesn't apply here. A sudden influx of brand-new editors popping up to defend the article doesn't inspire much confidence either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Overall he's sold over 3500 copies of full novels, the figure of 1100 was merely for the selling out of his first edition of his first novel, and this figure does not even begin to cover mini books, CD's, DVD's and other merchandise, this may not . And also, as stated in an above argument it is not just the occupation of author that Gutierrez is applicable to, but also to the position of Entertainer, and as also stated above he fulfills a number of the criteria points for this grouping. And the fact that there is an influx of brand new editors only further supports one of the criteria, that of having a large fanbase or significant cult following in a way, because I would imagine the influx of new editors are all fans of Gutierrez and wish to support him. The article I posted was detailed and relelvent with a lot of references and external links, and even whilst sitting here debating it's relelvence with you all I can think of newer categories and sub sections for the article which would further build upon it's relevence and cover all the criteria set down in the Wikipedia Rules on Biographies of Living People. 'Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability. Material from third-party primary sources should not be used unless it has first been published by a reliable secondary source. Material published by the subject must be used with caution.' My article followed all these guidelines on sources, there were no third party primary sources, there were several examples of secondary published sources, and the material posted by the subject itself was relevent to the article and followed the regulations on wikipedia rules for using self published material.MirfainLasui (talk) 22:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- 3500 copies is still not very impressive. That's what Steve Jackson Games does for a small run, and they're far from making all their authors notable. I think a run for a major publisher is at least 50,000 to 100,000 copies, and I doubt that everyone published by a major publisher is notable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- For a newly established publishing company though I'd call that impressive. And as has been said before and yet people seem to be ignoring, he fits the guideline criteria for notability as an entertainer, the article fitted the criteria for a biography of a living person, the article was an article on the person himself, and not on the books. If I was trying to post an article on when of his individual novels then I would obviously have no grounds whatsoever to do so, or to still be arguing it's worth, but the fact is the article itself followed far too many guidelines to be discredited so easily.MirfainLasui (talk) 22:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- So basically you are saying that his novels are not notable enough for Wikipedia, right? Then what makes the author of non-notable novels notable enough for Wikipedia? AecisBrievenbus 22:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hahah. Nice try, but no, that's not what I'm saying. As WP:BK says "In some situations, where the book itself does not fit the established criteria for notability, or if the book is notable but the author has an article in Wikipedia, it may be better to feature material about the book in the author's article, rather than creating a separate article for that book." What my comment did in fact say but you apparently did not understand was that Christopher Gutierrez is a notable enough person to have a wikipedia article based on the fact that he is an author, that he used to be a bassist in a band that has a wikipedia page, and that he follows numerous criteria guidelines for notability as an entertainer. His books also do follow two of the criteria for notability (namely in that they have been reviewed on multiple occasions and have an ibsn number) but as I'm not posting an article about his books on their own, but on the author and entertainer itsef, the fact that his novels are self pubished should not be held against his notability which is evident in other areas. The fact that you appear to be being deliberately obtuse in deciphering my comments and arguments does not make them any less valid in defending the notability of this person, and thus the right for this article to exist.MirfainLasui (talk) 22:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- "WP:BK pretty much completely rules out self-published books (and with good reason)," He meets the guidelines despite being self published. His books have been reviewed by papers, music websites, and notable musicians. His books have proper verified ISBN numbers and are in school libraries across the US and they are also in some Borders stores. Also this article isnt about a specific book, it's about the author and entertainer himself, and he definitely follows the criteria for notability. Musical overdose (talk) 22:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Endorse Deletion per Andrew Lenahan. Eusebeus (talk) 23:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion since I closed the AFD, I would have expected the courtesy of notification but anyway, there was a failure to meet WP:BIO. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, I'm fairly new to the workings of wikipedia deletion reviews and the like, and wasn't sure how I went about notifying the original deleter. However, the claim that it failed to meet WP:BIO had already been brought up, and upon reading that article I disputed the claim somewhere in the above discussion because firstly, Gutierrez fits the basic criteria having been the subject of more than one published secondary source, and secondedly fitts the additional criteria of Entertainer definitely (again as explained/evidence in various arguments above) and also in my opinion as an author although as he is self published not everyone agrees that he fits the author group as well as entertainer.MirfainLasui (talk) 13:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
|
