Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Kontras (2nd nomination)

Add links
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 no consensus. There seem to be several troubling irregularities related to this discussion, to the point that I'm not sure it's possible to derive a real consensus from it. No prejudice to later reconsideration. Shimeru (talk) 13:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Kontras

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Adam Kontras (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of notability. Discounting all the self-references, there does not appear to be much material about him. He appears to be mainly known as an internet blogger, but this blog doesn't appear to be notable. It failed a first AfD as "no consensus", but I don't think much has changed since then; this is marginal at best, and the sources nearly all reference 4TV. Therefore, I think the community should have a fresh discussion to consider deletion of this page. PeterSymonds (talk) 13:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I count 9 references outside of 4tvs.com - and the majority of 4tvs.com references have been added recently. Why not delete the newer references? The world's first video blogger and contributor to CBS are notable... However, I understand deleting the comedy central pilot since it wasn't picked up, therefore the information only comes from the blog (although it does include video of the pilot at their studios). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.151.17.229 (talk) — 98.151.17.229 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Weak Delete(see below). The subject doesn't seem to pass WP:BIO. A cursory glance at the Google results and the article's references didn't reveal any direct significant coverage by reliable secondary sources. — Rankiri (talk) 18:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • info To Whom it may Concern. I am presently being cyberstalked by Charles Groves ( http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=1000302&blogId=532431267 I have a snapshot if needed) and he is constantly changing IP addresses and user names to do this... yet also using those same names to attack me on various other sites (YouTube/Facebook). I please ask that you look at the actual evidence. The GMA Network in the Philippines is massive as is the television show I was spotlighted on Kapuso Mo, Jessica Soho. CBS is also, clearly, a major national and international network, and links abound as I showed above. Sorry I wasn't signed in when I wrote that originally, this has me a little frazzled. And no offense to Al Gore, but he didn't invent the internet - and video blogging is not the act of posting a video on the net. It's blogging in video form which again, no one has shown any proof that anyone was doing before I started in May 1999 (though it can be argued that since I didn't name it and update significantly until january 2nd, 2000 - that is the true date). Also for those bringing up self-referential links on the page, I do not control that. Every self-referential link also has an outside link (i.e. CBS, GMA Network, MSNBC, various news organizations) but for whatever reason the person editing it included links to my site instead of those. I've provided several of those above, and will provide several more where needed. If someone else started a video blog before me, I have no problem handing that title over. That hasn't happened, and no one is making the argument that it has. It should stand until that day. As well, my broadcasting career on a local and national level (how CBS isn't being considered a major news outlet is beyond me) is quite abundant (I'm not sure what the community considers "notable" but I stopped counting at 30+ on-air links on cbsnews.com) when compared to several people who presently have wikipedia pages but aren't currently being cyberstalked. Again, I ask that those reviewing this simply look at the info presented and not the cyberstalker making personal attacks. Adam4tvs (talk) 01:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sidestepping the obvious and admitted cyberstalking and persistent vandalism, it appears to me that Adam Kontras fulfills the WP:BIO criteria of Creative professionals: "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.", as well as Entertainers: "Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.". In addition, as happened with the last AfD, even more sources have been uncovered, including one in a physical book: Naked Lens: Video Blogging & Video Journaling to Reclaim the YOU in YouTube™ by Michael Sean Kaminsky. It has been cited in source after source that Adam Kontras is the first known video blogger. That in itself should be enough to fulfill the notability requirements. However, Kontras has also hosted a segment on CBS's The Early Show, and prior to moving to California was a radio personality on two different stations in Columbus. Some of this is already cited in the article; some of it may not be. Either way, the "self-references" are not inherently bad, as they help provide more detailed information. All of the major facts are also cited from external sources. I hope this discussion can focus on the actual content of Adam Kontras the article instead of whatever vendetta Charles Grove has against Adam Kontras the person. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 03:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, numerous links have already been provided to CBS to support the claim that Kontras worked on the CBS Early Show, and, in addition to the aforementioned book, the article already links to other sources, including a major television program in the Philippines, to support the claim that he was the first video blogger. In addition, there are mentions of his viral video success from MSNBC and two international newspapers, all reputable sources. Which fact are you looking for more sources to support? (Also, keep in mind that the video blogging article contains a timeline that lists Kontras as the first video blogger, and that has not yet been disputed or disproven by any source. [I haven't seen any direct evidence supporting the claim about the 1996 Sundance Film Festival, either.]) —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 16:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to WP:BIO, a person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. As I said earlier, I don't consider that one source significant coverage.
According to WP:ENT, a person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards:
  1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.
  2. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
  3. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.
I feel that merely working on the CBS Early Show isn't enough to satisfy #1. There is also no indication that the subject has a large fan base. As for providing unique contributions to a field of entertainment, the available evidence is unconvincing, to say the least. Aside from the fact that www.pinoychannel.tv appears to be a Philippine version of YouTube[2], that video ([3]) is not what I would generally describe as professional reportage. And this USAToday article, for example, claims that it was Brian Lamb "who was maybe the first video blogger, or vlogger". Again, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a vanity press. Another WP:RS source or two would certainly be nice. — Rankiri (talk) 17:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say the subject (myself) doesn't have a large enough fan base, yet in the same paragraph say this isn't a vanity piece. So which is it? Being the first to video blog is not about fan base or vanity, it's the truth, it has been proven, and has been accepted by the community. The video blog timeline has been there for years, and has never been disputed. Just because you think there may be someone else, doesn't mean my entry in the timeline isn't true. In the last dispute I proved that I actually started the video blog in question on January 2nd, 2000 - and if anyone can prove they were doing it before that (there are internet archives, that's how I proved my case) they're welcome to have the first spot in that timeline. And your link to USA Today says Brian Lamb started C-SPAN. Absolutely nothing about a video blog. Why did you include that? It also seems the author didn't understand that blog means "web log" so no, George Orwell didn't blog. Common misunderstandings from 2005.Adam4tvs (talk) 17:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to WP:V, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. Wikipedia articles may not be used as tertiary sources in other Wikipedia articles, and the statement on Video blog is not supported by any reliable references. Also, in light of your earlier edits, I strongly suggest you take a look on WP:COI, WP:PROMOTION and WP:OWNER. Regardless of what you may think, this "baby" isn't yours. — Rankiri (talk) 18:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree about how "unconvincing" the evidence is regarding providing unique contributions to entertainment. It's not every day that you see someone performing live to four other synchronized recordings of themselves, playing four other characters. And it was even less common back in 2000, when the blog about it began. In addition, I would think the (as-yet-undisproven) title of first Internet video blogger would be enough to qualify as notable on the biggest Internet encyclopedia. Yet Kontras has even more accomplishments—whether in television or on the Internet—than that, the sum of which should certainly be enough. And regarding PinoyChannel.tv, it may well be the YouTube of the Philippines, but all that means is that someone uploaded a copy of a professional TV program to it. (Whether that is a copyright violation on their part is outside the scope of this discussion.) It does not take away from the significance of the report. As has been shown, that television program has its own article on Wikipedia, too: Kapuso Mo, Jessica Soho. Also, could you please clarify what source you're referring to when you say "that one source"? (And I agree with Adam's conclusion that Brian Lamb's origination of C-SPAN does not qualify him as the first video blogger. Blogs are inherently published on the Internet, and C-SPAN did not begin on the Internet in 1979.) —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 18:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, let me make it clear, this is not a professional TV program but a video blog entry by a user named "Foodtrip28"[4]. The logo in the right corner says "pinoychannel.tv", which is the name of the website. Secondly, I'm pretty sure that making "unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment" means a bit more than recording 4 blogs a day. — Rankiri (talk) 18:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, what exactly makes that video significant coverage? It's a 10-minute-long segment that lacks translation, uses puppets, and seems to cover a whole bunch of subjects and individuals. — Rankiri (talk) 18:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you are misunderstanding what you are looking at. The "Pinoychannel.tv" logo is overlaid onto every video that is uploaded to the website, just like YouTube does. (In fact, the YouTube logo is there, too, which may mean this is a third-hand recording in one way or another.) This particular video, however, also shows the logos of the TV program (Kapuso Mo, Jessica Soho) and the TV network (GMA Network). It is a capture or a "rip" of the television broadcast or an official video from elsewhere on the Internet. The user Foodtrip28 merely happened to upload it. It is not that user's video blog entry. And the "unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment" were not referring to the blog itself, but the 4TVs concept that Adam Kontras has created. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 18:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just noticed the elusive logo and struck my earlier comment. I still don't find the sources ([5] and [6]) sufficiently convincing, so I'll just leave my earlier vote as "weak delete" for now(see below). — Rankiri (talk) 18:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note Due to excessive off-wiki canvassing on both sides, I have semi-protected this page for the remainder of the deletion discussion so that the Wikipedia community is freely able to discuss whether or not the article warrants deletion. –MuZemike 18:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. After spending way too much time looking for additional sources and giving the subject more thought, I'm changing my earlier vote to (strong) delete. From what I see, the direct independent coverage of the subject is limited to two sources. One of them is a TV show that, in my view, is rather childish and completely insignificant; the other one is a book by a seemingly non-notable author[8] that only contains two small paragraphs on the subject and includes the following disclaimer that pretty much makes it unreliable:
This book includes information from numerous sources and gathered from personal experience. It is published for general reference and is not intended to be a substitute for independent verification by readers when necessary and appropriate.[9]
Now, if I said that I was the first person to invent any notable product or phenomenon (e.g., regular blogging), would anyone accept an untranslatable video segment and a single reference in a dubious book as proof? Call me cynical, but I think that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and fortunately, Wikipedia's policies as WP:REDFLAG seem to support my views. Unless better sources are found, my opinion will stay unchanged. — Rankiri (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: With the permission of PeterSymonds (the originator of the AfD request), I have moved the irrelevant discussion to the talk page. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 21:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Fails WP:V. I am yet to see more than one notable secondary source or verifiable tertiary source. Primary sources do not contribute to WP:BIO notability. The secondary source coverage is minimal at best; thus requiring article to have multiple english or quoted in both languages and translated WP:NONENG sources. Although this seems to fall within WP:CREATIVE "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.", I expect to see sources. Anticipating response: Internet archive is a primary source on content, any conclusions are WP:OR. No other author's appearance gives notability. —  H3llkn0wz  ▎talk  21:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Gordon Hemsley. If a book focusing on video blogging says he was the first one, that's notable. Notable enough to attract international interviews is notable enough for our purposes. --GRuban (talk) 23:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're also having a bit of a chicken or the egg argument here. The internet archives prove the date that the video blog started. If we believe video blogging itself is notable, than proof that this is the earliest video blog recorded [10] is notable. We have that, and no one is disputing it or claiming there's an earlier record of one. As far as news reporting at the time, you have to understand that in 1999, video blogging wasn't newsworthy because no one could understand how fast speeds would become. At the time viewing video on the net was ridiculous. It didn't even have a name. Tom Brokaw wasn't going to report on the first video blogs or blogs for that matter, because it had no mainstream imprint. The pioneers in EVERY field start things when the idea isn't mainstream. It took 4-5 years before technology caught up enough to allow more people to do it, and when the mainstream press picked up on it that is when I began getting mentioned as the first. Luckily, we have internet archives to prove what I was doing WELL before the mainstream press picked up on it. Also the page has been updated with appropriate links that were missing or self-referential before. It should be reassessed.Adam4tvs (talk) 00:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notable enough for our purposes means receiving significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Judging by the quality of the book—did you read the disclaimer?—it's entirely possible that it simply used Wikipedia as its primary source of information. And again, I have to ask, did you actually see that "international interview"? In case you didn't, it's seems to be a kids' program that mentions a great number of various individuals. The overall length of the video is 10:24. The time it spends on this particular subject is less than 20 seconds (from 5:08 to 5:27), with the actual "interview" being less than 3 seconds(!) long. In fact, it looks like they didn't even interview the subject at all. Whatever video footage is in there, it appears to have been taken from the subject's video blog. TV interviews generally don't come with "created with Flip4Mac trial" watermarks, do they? — Rankiri (talk) 00:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems you continue to disregard that this was ripped from the television by someone who then uploaded it to a video sharing site. Please see the new references within the article that go to a more legitimate source. There are also more references on the page, and could have dozens more - but they all say the same thing. And I have to reiterate again: News sources are always going to be parroting another source. The only source that matters in this case is the internet archive that proves indisputably that the video blog existed in 2000. That's why it's on wikipedia's video blog timeline. If I went on CBS right now, and did an interview about it, it would be meaningless as to whether or not the claim is true. In fact I did an interview in December [11] on 610 WTVN [12] talking about being the first video blogger, and have another interview scheduled on Monday - but that has no bearing on the truth of the claim. The archive proves it. That's the point of an archive, you can't debate it. So again, you can argue that video blogging itself is not notable. That is absolutely a fair debate to have. But if you believe it is notable, and not only does the archive prove I was the earliest recorded video blog, but every single internet article uploaded, every news article ever written, every radio interview conducted, every television story broadcast, every book written about the subject says I'm the first, I honestly (sincerely) don't understand what more proof is needed. Adam4tvs (talk) 00:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to condemn those in the video blog timeline, but nearly every entry has either no references, or refers back to their site. No one has anywhere near the amount of references and media exposure I do for my entry, yet no one is questioning them. The issue here seems to be the notability of video blogging itself. I appreciate this debate though. It is civil, and it's clear both sides want to follow the guidelines and rules. Adam4tvs (talk) 01:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
New WP:BIO articles are created faster than they can be WP:AFD tagged. And, yes, all those first entries in the video blogging time-line fail verifiability. And the accompanying articles should be tagged for deletion. You must understand the effort it takes to familiarize oneself with a topic and look through all the sources and read all the comments and make objective decisions. Your article has gotten under consideration for its WP:CREATIVE point. I, myself, wanted to Keep this article, but ended up supporting deletion after having gone through the sources. —  H3llkn0wz  ▎talk  01:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I come from a media background, worked at a news radio station, and a source like the internet archive "Wayback Machine" is about as solid as you can get for verifying information...on the internet. There is no bias. We're focusing so closely on the minutiae of the guideline here, we're throwing all common sense out the window. Every expert on this subject of video blogs verifies it, and there is absolutely no conflicting information. And to further protect the claim, it's posted as the first "KNOWN" video blogger. There will never be a source that in 2000 would say "The Journey is the first video blog" because the name hadn't even been thought of. So because of this we don't make a timeline on video blogging? Doesn't make sense when we have tools like the internet archives to answer the questions we may have. Adam4tvs (talk) 02:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I must correct you on this being a minutiae of guideline. Sourcing is a core policy of Wikipedia . Wikipedia is, by definition, a tertiary source. Wikipedia requires secondary sources to support its coverage. In addition, tertiary sources may be used, if reliable. Finally, primary sources may be used only without interpretation. See WP:PSTS: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.". Wayback Machine is a primary source and interpretation of its content is original research. The book "Naked Lens: Video Blogging..." is a tertiary source, with its own acknowledgement of its questionable content. There are no other secondary sources presented here. I would accept that 1-2 tertiary sources like that book are enough to support the "first known" claim on the timeline. However, due to WP:CREATIVE and WP:REDFLAG I am unwilling to accept less than several secondary sources for warranting an article.—  H3llkn0wz  ▎talk  12:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I urge you (GRuban) to examine the sources closer.
The book is WP:SELFPUBLISH tertiary source and is not WP:V (author himself acknowledges this); it is not enough for WP:CREATIVE #2 claim — thus WP:REDFLAG, as Rankiri already pointed out.
The video features 30 sec of coverage and does not adhere to WP:NONENG.
Apologies if I am missing something, but where is this international interview that I can Verify? —  H3llkn0wz  ▎talk  00:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK I may actually, sincerely, not understand this. Are you saying that even though the archives prove that I have the earliest recorded video blog - because the news media hasn't done enough stories on that fact mean that it's not notable? I'm having a hard time understanding what that has to do with the video blog timeline. The fame or press coverage that the subject gets from being a pioneer or first at something has little to do whether that person is notable for being the first. Again, unless you are debating the entire concept of video blogging being notable (which is certainly up for debate I guess), then I'm not understanding the focus on the media attention. 'Cause quite frankly, unless your video blog is about celebrities or cute kittens, it's going to stay somewhat niche. Adam4tvs (talk) 00:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my point above.—  H3llkn0wz  ▎talk  00:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Marginal notability, if any that isn't self-generated. This guy seems to be rather good at self-promotion which appears to be muddying the waters with regard to getting sources that are themselves both reliable and notable in their own right. On the other hand I suppose someone somewhere may want to know who he is, but it seems to me is that his main claim to fame is being slightly famous for trying to be slightly famous. As we all know though, famous isn't necessarily the same thing as notable. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 00:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As the discssion has continued it's become more clear as to the lack of genuine notability, as such I've changed my opinion from a "weak delete" to a full blown "delete". As for the SPA tactics by a certain someone, I don't actually care who Mr Kontras has been fucking, unless of course it's Monica Lewinsky in a 3-some with Barack Obama in which case there's a much better chance of gaining notability. --Fred the Oyster (talk)
  • info. Changed nearly every reference to sources outside of 4tvs.com and erased all mention of the Comedy Central Pilot. I understand that outside of the entertainment industry, it is not notable to get a pilot greenlit unless it makes it to air. If no one else brings up the multiple sources that have claimed I was the first video blogger, I will provide those (though it seems overkill to continually link to the same information). Also please understand that there are two guidelines here being argued, and several are mixing them up. The WP:CREATIVE guidelines are clearly met starting with an act 4tvs that has never been done before or since - a live act with 5 of the same person performing onstage live with the use of TVs - that got picked up by CBS and was spotlighted multiple times a week on The Early Show (3 million viewers daily - though nobody I know ever watched it - LMAO) for over a year. It lead to a hosting career, special news correspondent and a sitcom on the show. Though completely separate from the video blogging claim, it should be noted that it was a video uploaded ON that video blog that caught the attention of the producers at CBS. And by the way, calling me out for self-promotion is a little disingenuous. The video blog itself can be termed self-promotion because everything came from posting it. It's like saying an actor's career isn't notable because it was self-generated by driving to the auditions. I didn't start CBS and then hire me. I didn't make up a bunch of websites and have them write about me. The act of uploading a video blog shouldn't rule out notability because my intention was to become notable. We should all have the intention of being a notable contributor to the planet. Shouldn't we? Adam4tvs (talk) 16:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I really do not wish to extend this discussion beyond helpful. It is not the "who you are and what you have done?" we are concerned with. It's "what do sources say about who you are and what you have done?". Wikipedia is not a news agency, nor is it original research supporter. Let me give you an example. Here are the 5 references used for supporting "However, he is best known as the first Internet video blogger":
Self-published tertiary source admitting it's own content's low verifiability: Sean Kaminsky, Michael (2010-01-07). "Naked Lens: Video Blogging & Video Journaling to Reclaim the YOU in YouTube™". http://books.google.com/books?id=grhR1eYswPkC&pg=PA37. Retrieved 2010-04-09.
Still not translated: Kapuso Mo, Jessica Soho (2009-02-07). "Pinoy Culture Video Blog" (in Filipino). GMA Network. http://blogs.gmanews.tv/kapuso-mo-jessica-soho/2009/02/11/video-blog/. Retrieved 2009-02-28.
User generated unverifiable tertiary source: Melanson, G. (2008). "What is a Vlogger?". http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-vlogger.htm. Retrieved 2008.
This seems to contain no actual reference to our article: Friedman, Nancy (2009-10-19). "You Can't Judge a Vook by Its Cover". http://www.visualthesaurus.com/cm/candlepwr/2035/. Retrieved 2010-04-09.
Primary source: Fightmaster, Duke (2010-03-10). "Adam Kontras Interview w/ Duke Fightmaster". Vimeo.com. http://vimeo.com/10066155. Retrieved 2010-04-09.
Any fact must be supported by a secondary source (or tertiary source based on such quality secondary sources) or it can be challenged by any other editor. Secondary means second opinion; not first, not third. It means author's interpretation of the subject that the public has generally accepted. Verifiable means having little to no dispute over its contents. Verifiable means the author has checked its facts. Verifiable means any original research is peer reviewed. Verifiable means I can read it and believe it.
Primary sources are acceptable if they do not draw any conclusions: "The author has been interviewed several times. The interviewer called the author first video blogger.[interview][interview][interview]" The two sentences made no conclusions whatsoever; they merely stated what the interviews had in common. But we can't say "The author is the first vlogger.[interview][interview][interview]" - that is original research.
Secondary and Tertiary sources must be notable and verifiable, such as a book published by notable publisher. The Lens: V... book's publisher has barely any google hits; nevermind the media coverage. It is not a notable book. It alone cannot support its claims.
The more quality sources, the better. Facts are better removed or reworded that supported by poor sources.
I hope I am being helpful in what direction the sourcing and article content need to be heading for.—  H3llkn0wz  ▎talk  17:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All the sources are commenting on something that is widely known and common knowledge by the video blogging community - AND can easily be looked up in the internet archive. It will continue to be covered the same way. The authors will verify the facts with the only way anyone can verify it: Go to 4tvs.com and look at it, go to an internet archive and see that it was there 10 years ago, and site other sources that say the same thing. Is Adage.com a legitimate source [13]? And again, what exactly are the requirements to publish first "KNOWN" anything? I understand this argument without the "known" moniker. But "known" implies there could be an earlier one, yet no one has come forward. Guiness Book of World Records does this often. Again, I don't mean to be argumentitive - you are easily the most lucid debater here and I appreciate it - but I'm trying to point out that what you're asking for will most likely never exist, because it's common knowledge. It's like saying there's news content at cnn.com - but not being able to "claim" that on Wikipedia, because it would require people to click on cnn.com. Also, if Duke Fightmaster has a wikipedia page (someone who interviewed me about being the first video blogger), Jessica Soho has a wikipedia page (someone who did a piece on me about being the first video blogger -- trying to get a translation for you), how are those not verifiable sources? Leaving out the book focusing solely on videoblogging.Adam4tvs (talk) 18:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid you are cross-using "source referencing" and "source interpretation". Rather than debating accuracy of each others claims; let me back up for a moment. Ultimately, this discussion is about improving the amount and quality of notable information on the Wikipedia. More precisely, how do we save the information in the article from being deleted.
Here is my suggestion. Firstly, assume that anything you write will get challenged. An hour, a day or a decade from now; but you can be sure it will. Therefore, it is pointless to include statements that are not supported by sources. Secondly, gather all the references you have and extract whatever material you can reference best. And finally, fully avoid interpreting sources.
I do not wish to be or sound patronizing; but something like this is your best bet. Bluntly said, unless this discussion takes a sharp turn from commenting each other into sound article improvement, nothing will be achieved but delaying the next AfD nomination.
I am glad to help you improve the article to avoid introducing any bias.—  H3llkn0wz  ▎talk  19:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Every statement I've made has been supported by sources (with the verifiability being debated). Now, if you mean the sources themselves also need sources -- how could they state I'm the first video blogger without sourcing the internet archive or what has already been written? That's why I keep coming back to this being a loop. Sources are reporting on something that isn't in dispute, 'cause anyone can look it up. For example: Writing that 4tvs.com started in April 1999. You can easily find that information. No one is disputing it. Could that "statement" not be on a wikipedia page? Under your argument, it could not unless a verifiable source published it, and gave some other source other than [14]. But why would anyone search for a source past whois.com? Or the internet archive? What, there needed to be someone next to me when I bought the domain? I needed to have a press release at the time to prove I did it? Why? It's easily found information. Again, how could any statement involving the "start" of something be verified any other way? I'm not trying to argue for argument's sake - I really think you're missing the "loop" for this type of "claim".Adam4tvs (talk) 22:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a loop. Here is what I mean, by example. You make a vlog (fact). Internet archive makes a snapshot (first source). A newspaper states you are the first vlogger based on Internet archive (secondary source). M.S.Kaminsky writes a book about vlogging and attributes you as the first vlogger based on the newspaper (tertiary source). The strike-through'ed text never happened or happened by we cannot prove it.
Now let's work backwards. Wikipedia receives entry "A.K. made the first vlog (fact)." It gets referenced, with source being M.S.Kaminsky's book (tertiary source). The book never mentions where the facts came from -- no secondary sources, no research, no conclusions; it simply states it. Now, WP challenges this source and by WP standards this book cannot be referenced (at least by itself). The fact can be verified, it can be deduced, it can be checked. But it cannot be referenced via the sources provided; they simply do not qualify as verifiable. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."
I'm afraid I am close to having exhausted my resources for this discussion. I copyedited the article, can help with properly using new sources and am willing to change my afd opinion should the sourcing improve in quality. But you are treading too closely to WP:NPOV being the article's subject and I feel I will inadvertently employ ad hominems just to prove my point. So I will not further clog the discussion with two-man dialogue and the remainder of this AfD is up to consensus from other editors.—  H3llkn0wz  ▎talk  23:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know I should not be speaking in my own defense but it's an interesting debate no matter the subject. Others will chime in. I appreciate explaining that the source would have to state "based on the internet archive" to be a legitimate secondary source. Again, I don't know of any physical newspaper or even well-known internet publication that would even go past looking at 4tvs.com unless specifically asked to prove the source... but I guess that's what it will come down to. Adam4tvs (talk) 01:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And we just disagree that this is an exceptional claim. They will all be "trivial mentions" unless I become well known for something else... because in the end, just starting the first video blog is clearly not notable enough - unless it leads to something bigger. And unfortunately for me, when it did lead to something bigger (CBS), I chose to spotlight my 4tvs act (which has also never been done before) as opposed to the video blog because I didn't find the video blog to be all that exceptional. Ironic. Adam4tvs (talk) 01:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination states nothing happened since the first nomination - ruling out the international coverage, the inclusion in a book, radio coverage and a pilot on Comedy Central. Adam4tvs (talk) 01:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be confusing the difference between work by you and work about you. The first is irrelevant, the latter crucial. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 22:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please remove clearly unreliable sources from the article. Sole Soul (talk) 20:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see the above discussion. [15], [16], and [17] are all tertiary sources of dubious reliability. The self-published book has alrady been discussed earlier. The latter source seems to contain some factual inaccuracies: its claim that the term "vlog" was "coined around 2004" conflicts with the Merriam-Webster's Dictionary, which indicates that the term was actually coined in 2002. A couple of sentences is not significant coverage, particularly in a book. According to WP:RS, tertiary sources should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion. These sources are certainly not good enough for WP:REDFLAG.
[18] is a blog with a single mention of the subject. The blog refers to the so-called "interview" (ref.19) that's also been discussed earlier. [19] is a performance announcement in a local student newspaper[20] that has some coverage on the subject but not on the discussed claim. The references in the Early Show, YouTube and Atom.com only link to the subject's video submissions. [21] (translation) and [22]translation only have very superficial coverage of the above YouTube video. From what I see, [23] doesn't mention the subject at all. Being the first first video blogger ever would probably make the subject notable, but so far the claim hasn't been supported by reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. — Rankiri (talk) 21:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, please remove clearly unreliable sources from the article. Sole Soul (talk) 22:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry but it's not my responsibility to clean the article I currently think needs to be deleted from fluff, so you can take a closer look at its sources. Please recall WP:BURDEN. Your argument is that the person is notable because of his status as the first video blogger. I merely follow WP:V and ask for high-quality secondary sources supportive of that claim. — Rankiri (talk) 23:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not asking you to clean the article so I can take a closer look at its sources. My point is that your argument amounts to a content dispute and is likely to be challenged if you apply it to the article. A deletion discussion should wait if the result of a content dispute would decide the notability of the article. Sole Soul (talk) 23:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So your suggestion is to keep the article because any attempts to remove improper sources will likely result in edit warring by editors with a clear conflict of interest? That's why we have AfD. It's not a majority or hit-and-run vote. It's a place for rational discussion of whether an article is able to meet Wikipedia’s article policies and guidelines. I think it isn't, and if you believe that my objections are not policy-based, please say so. You think it is, but your arguments seem to be rather evasive and don't address the key problems raised in this discussion. — Rankiri (talk) 23:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rankiri, the MSNBC transcript does not mention Adam Kontras by name, but his viral video was shown as part of the third story on Countdown (referred in the transcript as "BEGIN VIDEO CLIP") and was video captured at the time by Kontras for his video blog: [24]. You can clearly see his name onscreen at the beginning of the clip that they play. And given that he voiced all the characters and sang all the parts (which are all documented in the transcript), I don't think you can make the claim that he may have doctored this video. (The date on the transcript is 2006; he didn't finish uploading his backlog of videos to YouTube until 2009[25]; but that was well before this discussion began, so the dates cannot be used against him, either.) —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 03:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The segment only shows the same YouTube/4TVs video without even mentioning its name or the name of its author. The transcript marks the singing voice (I assume it was the author?) as "UNIDENTIFIED MALE". It only briefly discusses the video as a sample entry in "a plethora of protest songs". Perhaps the source can be used for Atom Bomb Iran, but the segment doesn't have any direct coverage of the subject at all. "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. — Rankiri (talk) 04:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said, his name is shown on screen at the start of the video clip (which is described in detail by the anchor, by the way). Here is the direct link to the part in the video with his name onscreen: [26]. The link to MSNBC was used to support the claim of Kontras' viral success with the video that MSNBC covered in that segment on Protest Rock. I was merely pointing out you were wrong in your statement about the source. I wasn't making any claim towards the weight of the source itself. And, also, the transcript marks the entire video (which involves three different characters plus the song) with just that one "UNIDENTIFIED MALE" term. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 17:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see what you mean, but this information was already present in the original version of the video[27] and wasn't added by MSNBC. Besides, what does it matter? Considering that the source still doesn't have any actual coverage of the subject, I find this line of argument unnecessary and misleading. — Rankiri (talk) 20:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Those following this discussion may wish to know that User:Adam4tvs was indefinitely banned by User:GlassCobra simply because his username contains "4tvs" in it, and without any regard for his participation here. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 03:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Adam_Kontras_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1079664153"