Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Duke Mason (4th 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. czar 00:47, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

James Duke Mason

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article strikes me as a local figure in West Hollywood who has very little meaningful notability. Its AfD history is unusual. I believe it went through three nominations. The first two were deletes and the last was no consensus. The article has very little interest to most Wikipedians given the low number of watchers but is neverless subject to a fair amount of disruptive editing from IPs. I figure if there is no consensus to delete, then I will remove it from my watchlist and not have to deal with it anymore. Bbb23 (talk) 02:19, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete funny, it also deleted when he was 14 yrs old. [1]. Yawn. Looks not notable to me. Low level political figure and son of a famous person. LGBT activist sort of. Legacypac (talk) 02:54, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He fails WP:POLITICIAN by a long shot, and the article relies heavily on name-dropping. He is a visible activist and may well be notable in a few years, but not now. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:08, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:38, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:39, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:39, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Besides this [2] link of 6 years, there is nothing that maintains his notability as for now. Looks like clear case pf WP:TOSOON Arthistorian1977 (talk) 21:42, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The person who vandalized the page a few days ago was a personal friend who had malicious intent. Before then the page hadn't been edited for years, except for occasional edits to update it with relevant information. There are other people with Wikipedia pages who are not notable for any reason other than being celebrity children (Frances Bean Cobain, for instance); I am a celebrity child but have visibility and notability as a writer and activist, in addition to my biological heritage. Like I said, I'm happy to add as many references and external links as possible to my page to further establish my notability, but if you take one look at Google and look at the many mainstream and high profile publications I've both written for and been featured in (Hollywood Reporter, Daily Mail, Huffington Post, OUT, The Advocate, Los Angeles Times), I think it's clear I more than meet the notability criteria based solely on my reputation as a writer and political activist. - James Duke Mason — Note to closing admin: 86.181.86.37 (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 15:36, 27 June 2017‎ (UTC).

Hi this is James Duke Mason myself here. I don't know if this is the right way for me to contribute to this discussion but I am really frustrated with the way this entire situation has unfolded. The only reason this situation started was because someone decided to vandalize my page multiple times with insults and falsehoods, and therefore it took several edits for me to revert the page back to the way it was. Because of all the activity, one of the administrators noticed it and for some strange reason, even though this page has existed for several years without any debate or discussion, bizarrely decided to start a debate about whether it should be deleted or not. I'm very happy to add as many references as possible to establish my "notability", but after my page has existed for several years without any issue whatsoever, I think it would be strange to delete it now for no reason. Give me some time to include some additional references and please leave my page as it is. I should also add that I've been verified by Twitter which should be a big validator of my notability as a public figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.86.37 (talk) 16:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: 86.181.86.37 (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]

Delete & Salt as per nom. Fails WP:POLITICIAN for his political work and WP:ENTERTAINER for the minor TV appearances, etc. All prior AfD discussions ended decisively as "delete", except the 3rd one, which appears to have ended in "no consensus" solely due to lack of attention (there were no "keep" arguments given). I also suspect this article is a violation of WP:NOTPROMOTION due to the article's extensive deletion/recreation history, the creation of its current incarnation by a WP:SPA, and extensive admitted editing and content-policing by its subject (a clear WP:COI). - GretLomborg (talk) 17:55, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on the deletion/recreation history, the subject's interference with this AfD (removing notices and blanking), and demonstrated attitudes shown in his past behavior and comments here; I'm changing my vote to include WP:SALTing the article to prevent wasting time on a 6th AfD after it's inevitable recreation. - GretLomborg (talk) 04:07, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Considering this is the fifth AfD for this BLP, is this page a candidate for salting (WP:SALT), due to its deletion/recreation history? - GretLomborg (talk) 18:32, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is totally unfair and uncalled for. I haven't ever edited my Wikipedia entry except to fix it when it was vandalized. It is totally unfair and detrimental to my career to have this article deleted. It has been on Wikipedia for years without any issues, so if you could just please move on from this, that would be great. It really doesn't cost you guys anything to just take this off your watch list and let this go. It would mean the world to me. -James Duke Mason — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.86.37 (talk) 20:37, 26 June 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: 86.181.86.37 (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]

Detrimental to your career? You must be kidding. This is an encyclopedia, not a career advancement website. Please use Facebook, Instagram, Twitter or LinkedIn for such purposes. We do not care about your career needs at all. We care about encyclopedic content which is in full compliance with our policies and guidelines. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - significant may be but certainly not notable . Appears to be a case of self aggrandisement. Fails WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Velella (talk • contribs) 22:19, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't think there's a real reason to delete this page after it has existed for several years now without any controversy. I'm verified on Twitter, have been written about because of my notability in various major publications, and the only reason we're having this debate is because my page was vandalized- is it fair for me to be punished because of someone else's vandalism? I think this whole discussion should be dropped and we can all move on with our lives. Happy to add as many references to my page as necessary to establish my notability. I'm a prominent activist/writer and should be on Wikipedia based purely on those criteria. -James Duke Mason — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.86.37 (talk) 08:18, 27 June 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: 86.181.86.37 (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]

You said yourself that your page has been vandalized, and the nominator states that's been happening for some time and he's tired of cleaning it up, so it's hardly been up for "years without any issue whatsoever." - GretLomborg (talk) 14:32, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe we're having this conversation, but still. Look, the wikipedia has strict guidelines for establishing people's notability and from what I see you fails them. The guideline are here: Wikipedia:Notability (people). The fact that article was there for years and no one looked at it does not make it passing the criteria for inclusion. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:38, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The person who vandalized the page a few days ago was a personal friend who had malicious intent. Before then the page hadn't been edited for years, except for occasional edits to update it with relevant information. There are other people with Wikipedia pages who are not notable for any reason other than being celebrity children (Frances Bean Cobain, for instance); I am a celebrity child but have visibility and notability as a writer and activist, in addition to my biological heritage. Like I said, I'm happy to add as many references and external links as possible to my page to further establish my notability, but if you take one look at Google and look at the many mainstream and high profile publications I've both written for and been featured in (Hollywood Reporter, Daily Mail, Huffington Post, OUT, The Advocate, Los Angeles Times), I think it's clear I more than meet the notability criteria based solely on my reputation as a writer and political activist. - James Duke Mason — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.86.37 (talk) 15:37, 27 June 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: 86.181.86.37 (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]

Delete. There are no particularly strong claims of notability here, nor is there the depth of reliable source coverage about him needed to clear WP:GNG for any of it. Apart from one blurb in the annual Out100, this is otherwise based entirely on blogs, primary sources, glancing namechecks of his existence in articles that aren't about him, and Q&A interviews in which he's speaking about himself — none of which are sources that can assist in building notability.

James, you appear to be taking this way too personally above — what you need to understand is that our notability and sourcing requirements are not meant to punish you, or to dismiss the work you're doing as unimportant, but to protect you from the negative consequences of having a Wikipedia article. The very fact that you had to correct vandalism on the article is exactly the issue: because we're an encyclopedia that anybody can edit, we cannot guarantee that every possible anybody is editing with good intentions. Our articles are regularly edited to insert total nonsense, unsourced personal criticism, outright libel, inside jokes, total hijacking to be about somebody else entirely, and other stuff that belongs nowhere near a Wikipedia article — and our quality control model, in which the only mechanism we have to keep the article proper and correct is the oversight of other editors, (a) depends on reliable source coverage so that we can properly sort out what's true and what isn't, and (b) does not work well on low-traffic topics. An inappropriate edit to Barack Obama will get caught within seconds, because thousands of people have his article watchlisted, but an inappropriate edit to a lower-profile topic could potentially linger in the article for weeks, causing damage to their reputation. Which is precisely why we have certain specific minimum standards of accomplishment that have to be met, and certain specific minimum standards of reliable sourcing that have to be present to support them, before an article becomes earned: that's how we protect our article subjects from the damage that having a Wikipedia article can cause.

And no, the standards you would have to meet for a Wikipedia article to become appropriate just aren't being shown here. Again, this is not criticism of you — it's for your protection. The fact that you've raised actual vandalism to this article as a thing you had to personally get involved in correcting reveals precisely why we can't keep it — until you've reached a high enough plateau of public visibility that there are a few dozen Wikipedia editors keeping an eye on the article instead of just two or three, we have no other way to control the risk of the vandalism returning again.

Also, under our conflict of interest rules, the question of whether you pass our inclusion standards or not is not for you to decide about yourself. People quite routinely lack objectivity about their own work, so if we allowed people to decide for themselves whether they cleared our notability standards or not, we'd just be a public relations platform and not an encyclopedia. So, again, you need to not take this personally: it's not criticism of you or what you do, you're just not famous enough among the general public that an open encyclopedia, in which the content creation model is "anybody can do absolutely anything at all, even if it breaks the rules" and the quality control model is "other people have to see what's already been done before anything can actually be done to fix it post facto", can properly guarantee you the necessary level of maintenance. (And no, Wikipedia isn't the place to make yourself more famous, either: our role here is to follow the media coverage of people who have already attained the necessary level of fame, not to help people create their media presence.) Bearcat (talk) 17:50, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is actually the 5th deletion discussion. The first version of the article was deleted back in 2006 when it was named James Mason and then had his mom's name and son of in parenthesis. He is an utterly unnotable politician. Members of city boards, especially in non-major cities like West Hollywood, are not notable. Even if he had won in the city council race he would not be notable. Being a US house page is not a sign of notability. Nothing else comes close to showing notability. Whatever the claim about being an "official surrogate" means I am not sure of, but it does not sound like an actual claim to notability. The last discussion closed as no consensus, but that was mainly from non-discussion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment J. D. Mason needs to better understand Wikipedia policies on not creating articles on yourself, that Wikipedia is not a platform for self promotion, and related rules. Lists of people who are thought to potentially have impact should not be treated as reliable sources, especially since they have become so common of late. Appearing on these lists is not a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:16, 29 June 2017 (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.