Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Travis Gordon (4th nomination)
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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
- Travis Gordon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Person who, if he can be considered to be known at all, is only known for one thing, and that thing already has its own article. At best this is only worth a redirect, but then I don't think the place it would redirect to necessarily deserves to have a Wikipdia article either. Only sources cited either fail WP:RS rules or do not demonstrate notability for a Wikipedia article because of trivial coverage.
And, hell, haven't looked but you'd think with a generic name like Travis Gordon some other random Travis Gordon is bound to be more notable than this person. Four short articles in local newspapers would be more sources and coverage that this guy. Maybe some schoolboard member somewhere objecting to the sale of cookies with peanuts in them at bake sales because of the risk of allergens got quoted five times and would bump this guy.
Vanityspamcruft. DreamGuy (talk) 01:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:CREATIVE. We do not delete a notable topic simply because it has a less-in-depth-mention elsewhere in the encyclopdia. As was pointed out in the AFD keep of just last month, multiple independent sources offer significant coverage. And even if Gordon is not the main topic of the coverage,Innsmouth Free Press Wired.com AintItCoolNews Tubefilter News etal, give us citable information about the individiual. Per guideline: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". Since those articles (and there are others) speak of Gordon or his work, directly and in detail, even if not in great detail and even with Gordon not being the main topic of the source material, we have a meeting of WP:SIGCOV. And toward the subject meeting WP:CREATIVE... Gordon's works are the recipient of "multiple independent articles or reviews" (IE: see the number of refs in the Spellfury article), and as the creator of the web series being so covered, he is notable per the applicable guidelines. And while the nominator has opined that he also feels Spellfury does not deserve an article, sources found there show its notability as well, per guideline. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, no... the notability rules demand that the coverage be non trivial and the focus of mutliple reliable sources. This person is not the focus, and most of the cites referenced only mention the series in passing amongst a list of others, meaning trivial. If the series is determined to be notable, this individual is notable ONLY for this series, and therefore per very clear rules does not deserve an article himself and only a redirect. Unless you'd like to opine some reason the article should be separate, your argument has no basis in Wikipedia policies. DreamGuy (talk) 15:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, no... they "demand" no such thing... he need not be the focus. The notability guideline specifically states "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material" (my emphasis). And while ALL information in an article MUST be verifiable, that verifiability need not itself be significant coverage. And sources which address the subject directly and in detail, need not be expansive. Again, as the creator of the web series being so covered, he is notable per the the applicable guideline WP:CREATIVE #3: The person has created... a significant or well-known work... that has been the subject of... multiple independent articles or reviews, and the sources provide enough verifiable information about Gordon himself upon which to build a BLP. And as he is a creative, the comprehensive BLP shows that he has done MORE than just the one thing. A properly comprehensive BLP needs to offer our readers scope and depth. And, as this BLP contains and as it grows will contain sourcable information about this individual that has no place in an article about Spellfury, THAT is a guideline and policy supported reason to allow a seperate article to remain and grow over time and through regular edits. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, no... the notability rules demand that the coverage be non trivial and the focus of mutliple reliable sources. This person is not the focus, and most of the cites referenced only mention the series in passing amongst a list of others, meaning trivial. If the series is determined to be notable, this individual is notable ONLY for this series, and therefore per very clear rules does not deserve an article himself and only a redirect. Unless you'd like to opine some reason the article should be separate, your argument has no basis in Wikipedia policies. DreamGuy (talk) 15:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Travis is notable as a webseries creator. — 70.54.9.239 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.9.239 (talk) 04:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. nomination does not reference recent keep at Afd, which is an unforgivable sin.--Milowent • talkblp-r 04:23, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not an argument for keeping in the slightest. And if you want a reference to the recent keep vote, how about: the person who closed it as keep did so not following common rules for such things by accepting votes from clear sockpuppet/single purpose accounts. It's an open and shut case of vanity spamming. On top of that, it's a clear example of WP:ONEEVENT. DreamGuy (talk) 15:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The earlier 3 closers weighed guidline and policy and made proper closes that respected consensus. And User: Ron Ritzman wisely made note that the third AFD, was filed less than a month after the previous one had closed as a keep.. a premature renomination much like this one. I would advise you be VERY careful not to accuse established editors User:I Jethrobot, User:FuFoFuEd, or myself {from AFD #3), or User:Showzampa and User:I Jethrobot (of AFD #2), or User:khfan93, User:Showzampa, or User:Gtstricky (from AFD #1) of being sockpuppets or SPAs... and unless you have some foundation (other than you disagreeing with them) to show that respected and experienced closing admins User:Xymmax, User:Spartaz and User: Ron Ritzman do not understand policy or guideline inre closing AFDs or are abusing their tools in doing so, I would suggest you cease such unfounded allegations. Please, WP:CIV and WP:NPA are policies that we are all need to understand and apply. I would also suggest you consider the wisdom behind WP:NOTAGAIN cautioning about how repeated or frivilous nominations can sometimes appear to be in violation of policy. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, AFD3 was filed the same day AFD2 was closed. As for the first AFD, the "sock puppets" mentioned by DreamGuy were actually !votes pasted into the first AFD from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spellfury by Showzampa. However, the second AFD was questionable as the only 2 !votes were an SPA and the article's creator. That close was somewhat out of character for Spartaz who in the past has closed against the numbers. I'm going to guess he didn't want to get raked over the coals for supervoting again. I personally would have relisted that AFD a second time. One thing is clear though, in all of these AFDs, nobody but the nominator was arguing for deletion (there were 2 "struck" delete !votes in AFD1). If any admin had punched any of these as "delete" they would be taking their lumps at DRV. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 11:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Alternatively, I might have felt the consensus was to keep. Certainly there was no consensus to delete. Anyway, keep because the nominator is being really nasty and unpleasant. Which is as logical a reason for my vote as their incredibly pathetic, ignorant and ill-informed comments are. Spartaz Humbug! 15:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, AFD3 was filed the same day AFD2 was closed. As for the first AFD, the "sock puppets" mentioned by DreamGuy were actually !votes pasted into the first AFD from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spellfury by Showzampa. However, the second AFD was questionable as the only 2 !votes were an SPA and the article's creator. That close was somewhat out of character for Spartaz who in the past has closed against the numbers. I'm going to guess he didn't want to get raked over the coals for supervoting again. I personally would have relisted that AFD a second time. One thing is clear though, in all of these AFDs, nobody but the nominator was arguing for deletion (there were 2 "struck" delete !votes in AFD1). If any admin had punched any of these as "delete" they would be taking their lumps at DRV. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 11:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The earlier 3 closers weighed guidline and policy and made proper closes that respected consensus. And User: Ron Ritzman wisely made note that the third AFD, was filed less than a month after the previous one had closed as a keep.. a premature renomination much like this one. I would advise you be VERY careful not to accuse established editors User:I Jethrobot, User:FuFoFuEd, or myself {from AFD #3), or User:Showzampa and User:I Jethrobot (of AFD #2), or User:khfan93, User:Showzampa, or User:Gtstricky (from AFD #1) of being sockpuppets or SPAs... and unless you have some foundation (other than you disagreeing with them) to show that respected and experienced closing admins User:Xymmax, User:Spartaz and User: Ron Ritzman do not understand policy or guideline inre closing AFDs or are abusing their tools in doing so, I would suggest you cease such unfounded allegations. Please, WP:CIV and WP:NPA are policies that we are all need to understand and apply. I would also suggest you consider the wisdom behind WP:NOTAGAIN cautioning about how repeated or frivilous nominations can sometimes appear to be in violation of policy. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not an argument for keeping in the slightest. And if you want a reference to the recent keep vote, how about: the person who closed it as keep did so not following common rules for such things by accepting votes from clear sockpuppet/single purpose accounts. It's an open and shut case of vanity spamming. On top of that, it's a clear example of WP:ONEEVENT. DreamGuy (talk) 15:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Last AFD was closed in August and the one before it in July. Why does this keep getting nominated? The guy is covered in Wired and elsewhere for his work, and is therefor obviously notable. Dream Focus 17:58, 2 October 2011 (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.