Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2 the Ranting Gryphon (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 delete. --Coredesat 22:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2 the Ranting Gryphon[edit]

2 the Ranting Gryphon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

While the article is certainly notable inside the sci-fi and furry fandoms, I think therein lies the problem as well - he is notable only within that arena. Further, the text in the article is direct copy from the same article on WikiFur. Note, this has been deleted before and is accordingly eligible for a db-repost, but perhaps it's best kept in here. I must abstain, but I highly recommend a clean-up if it's to stay. Dennisthe2 20:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For reference: previous AFD. Zetawoof(ζ) 21:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETING ADMIN, PLEASE NOTE - there may be additional material. Please keep this open a little longer, I think it may have a chance. See below. --Dennisthe2 01:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Relisted, meaning this will run for at least another 5 days as of writing. See below. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My apologies to the concerned gryphon, but as it stands the article is sorely lacking in reliable sources. While the WikiFur article established him pretty solidly as notable within the fandom, that doesn't translate into notability in the world at large - hence, it doesn't really work very well in Wikipedia. Delete again (without prejudice against a recreation) unless someone can do a full rewrite, citing sources to show why he's notable outside the furry fandom. Zetawoof(ζ) 21:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Hey, thanks for tweaking the post. =^_^= --Dennisthe2 23:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant Weak Delete. The test is WP:BIO, and the phrase is "Widely recognized entertainment personalities"; and precedent shows that "througout the fandom" isn't sufficiently "wide". Evidence is needed - let's hope someone finds it. Tevildo 22:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. Not withstanding the current article status, which is somewhat promotional and would need a vicious copyediting regardless, this comes down largely to how we read the "widely recognized" clauses of WP:BIO (to wit: "The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field" / "Widely recognized entertainment personalities...."). He has been a featured guest (or equivalent) at nearly every convention in the genre and listed as a participant at one (apparently -- I don't know enough about furry to be certain) general-purpose science fiction convention.[1] Those sources are clearly independent of him but not of his subculture. As for wider references, I give up; the amount of Google to search through far outweighs the effort I'm willing to invest in an article that I have a "hunch" might have a source out there. For the hopeful: "2" is of course a worthless search term, and wider media would cite him by his name anyway (Matthew Davis), which he shares with at least two unrelated actors, an unrelated rant-style comedian (so much for using "rant" or "ranting" to narrow), an unrelated semi-professional journalist, an unrelated research scientist, and an unrelated university professor. I'm not convinced that the references available are enough to encourage a keep vote, but I am worried that the (generally justified) desire to purge the largely unverifiable content ported from Wikifur is resulting in a tightening of WP:BIO. For better or worse, we may lose quite a few (non-furry) biographies if we require a citation from outside the field of influence. Serpent's Choice 09:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • For what it's worth, he's more or less a fixture at major furry conventions, including Anthrocon and Further Confusion (to cite some larger, better-known ones), and a popular one at that, often filling large rooms with onlookers. However, I'm still not sure that this translates into notability, and I haven't cited any verifiable sources yet. A large part of the problem, in fact, is likely to be that most of the discussion is in uncitable forms - LJ entries, forum posts, and IMs. Zetawoof(ζ) 10:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was present at ConClave 31, which has indeed been a general SciFi convention, and during his appearance there he asked for those people who didn't know about furry fandom to stick their hands up. About three people at the back did so. Now, there's a difference between "know" and "be a member of", but my opinion is that a majority of those attending his show (I estimate about 75-100, the room was full) were in the fandom, or at least knew 2 from there. His presence was part of an attempt to attract the furry contingent (and goths) to a convention which was faltering in terms of numbers. It should be noted that it was successful in doing so, with a 1/4 to 1/3 rise in attendance and part of this could be attributed to 2's presence. I can confirm that whenever 2 appears at a furry convention to present a show, it is something that people mention on the schedule. He is, in my opinion, the most notable dedicated comedian in the fandom, although I think he'd be in stiff competition with Uncle Kage for the title of "most notable entertainer at conventions" (at least, he would be if they weren't good friends). He has made attempts to break out of this niche into more general comedy but I am not aware of any evidence that he has been successful so far. GreenReaper 17:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I find myself unable to conclusively resolve whether the available material meets the notability criteria. To my mind, that suggests that the guideline may need to be revisited, and so I've outlined the issue at the WP:BIO talk page. Serpent's Choice 06:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am the individual this article is written about. Perhaps I can clear up what it is that I do. I am a stand up comic who performs internationally within many specialized and main stream groups, not only the Sci Fi communities. I have performed main stream comedy clubs, universities, conventions, cruise ships and private parties since 1998. The main issue seems to be if my work is too confined within a specific sub-culture to be noted on Wikipedia. However, I am unsure of why this is an issue since there are literally hundreds of personalities noted here who work within one specific sub-culture. My work is certainly no less noted than any of the myriad of artists from the furry, sci fi or fantasy communities which are listed within Wikipedia. Of course, this does nothing to "prove" my notability. However, if you'll put the single word "ranting" into Google, you'll see my site is on the top of the list.

2 Gryphon 10:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • 2, you raise good points, and thanks for chiming in on this. I personally will do what I can on this - but frankly, your article needs a good cleaning up into something other than an exact copy of what's on Wikifur. =^_^= See the original statement I give in the AFD post. --Dennisthe2 00:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just checked around on google. The one article I can find that might make notability standards is this article, but you only get a fleeting mention in here that briefly describes you. I hate to say it, 2, but as much as I like you, at this time Wikipedia isn't going to hold an article on you - and if it's not me, then it's going to be somebody else putting this article up here. --Dennisthe2 00:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Though I did not start this article (either time it was put up), I'm very happy to be recognized here on Wikipedia and I'd like to do what I can to help keep the article around. I've looked, but I cannot find a description of the notability standards you've mentioned. However, I can say that I've been a guest character in the webcomic "Jack", which has an entry here. I've performed multiple times for 11, been the Guest of Honor at 5, and am on staff at 2 of the conventions which have entries here. I've been interviewed in Vanity Fair magazine, which has an entry here. I've written fiction for publications that are listed here. I've produced 4 full length motion pictures and 2 CDs which are distributed by a company that is listed here. There is even a number of references to me in Wikipedia from other entries. I do admit to ignorance of these notability standards, but seeing the effort Wikipedia dedicates to quality, shouldn't it consider itself a notable source? There are many people listed on Wikipedia who have few online references at all, and they may be entries that will also eventually be noticed and deleted. But doesn't the fact that my entry has been discussed for deletion twice while others have gone ignored indicate that it IS notable? What exactly qualifies a person as "notable" on Wikipedia?

2 Gryphon 21:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

          • Happen to have the article information for the Vanity Fair interviews? Recognized print medium sources are generally looked upon favorably. Serpent's Choice 06:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • If we can get this, that alone will force me to withdraw the AfD.
        • Easiest way to answer the notability standard is to refer you to here. --Dennisthe2 06:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • here's my though, the reasons given to delete this article are weak. some one must be bored, because they came up with lame excuses to delete this article. as for that "one specific sub-culture" thing, that the dumbest reason of all. is wikipedia that stuck up? thats not a good reason to delete an article. its about a real eprson, with a real website and who's done REAL stand up. If you take this article off you might as well take off mr. bungle and "hell yeah"(which hasn't even made an album yet). thats my thoughts on this. thank you. have a nice day.Dedman-88 22:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You failed to read the entire AFD statement I gave, above. Read it again and be enlightened. Also read up on WP:ILIKEIT in its entirety, and if you feel that Mr. Bungle should be removed, then put it up for deletion. As for Hell Yeah, looks like user:Zetawoof just got that one for crystalballery. --Dennisthe2 00:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yep, just nominated that. Thanks for the suggestion, Dedman. Zetawoof(ζ) 01:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another note, you might read up on WP:AFD to understand the deletion procedures, and click around to understand deletion criteria. --Dennisthe2 00:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weakish delete with no prejudice against possible future recreation, per Zetawoof (near the top of the page). Samuel Conway is a pretty good model of the sort of thing that would hold up, but as it stands 2's article is not enough. Verifiability is a tough policy ("The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth"), but Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and I think it's right that there's some sort of bar to clear. Also, as pointed out by a couple of other editors above, the fact that a number of other people who don't meet the verifiability standards have articles on Wikipedia doesn't mean that they should have them; it just means nobody's got around to nominating them for deletion! The production of a couple of mainstream news articles discussing 2 more than very fleetingly would change things quite a bit and would probably lead me to vote keep. Loganberry (Talk) 03:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Sam Blanning(talk) 00:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted partly due to Dennisthe2's request, partly due to the lack of editors arguing for a particular outcome (i.e. keep/delete) compared to the large amount of discussion. Note that an article can be deleted due to lack of reliable sources available and be recreated if/when they are found later. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no indication of any notability outside of fan videos, self-produced DVDs and appearances at fan conventions. (Not that there's anything wrong with that, it's just that we can't build a verifiable encyclopaedia article out of these sources.) Demiurge 00:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Currently not verifiable. So delete, but possibility of recreation if more sources appear. --Wildnox(talk) 00:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete `'mikka 01:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no reliable sources. I have no prejudice against recreation if sources can be found. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Demiurge. Some of this can be merged to Anthrocon. Caknuck 02:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with Demiurge. Bec-Thorn-Berry 04:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in its present state. No prejudice against recreation with sources, especially if something from Vanity Fair actually emerges. Serpent's Choice 05:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Unlike the Samuel Conway article, which is very well sourced, this one is original research on a non-notable person (no offense 2). Best left in wikifur and protected from recreation so we don't have to keep deleting it. NeoFreak 13:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to absence of secondary sources Guy (Help!) 15:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:V -- RoySmith (talk) 18:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, can somebody give me a good reason why I should not just speedy this right now under WP:CSD G4 (recreation of previously deleted material) and protect it against re-creation? -- RoySmith (talk) 18:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you go {{db-repost}} on this, I'd say don't protect unless 1) it's reposted yet again as a verbatim or near-verbatim recreation, 2) the repost is once again an exact copy of the article on WikiFur, or 3) it's reposted without assertion of notability. In short, delete without prejudice if you must. The article's subject, however, has noted that there's something of a possible saving grace - so I'd say give it the AFD period before nuking it. --Dennisthe2 20:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per Demiurge. Montco 01:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there are no independent sources which allows the article, in this condition, to satisfy WP:V and WP:BIO.-- danntm T C 03:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article is reasonably well written but there is nothing in it which establishes notability. Quadzilla99 04:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep Just because someone is well-known only in a sub-community doesn't make them non-notable. I'd conjecture fewer people know about Bremstrahlung radiation than know about Two, does that make it non-notable? I think he may well meet notability requirements based on the number of appearances at various conventions, being a guest of honor is certainly an establishment of notability especially within a subculture. Wintermut3 06:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability (people) don't include the number of appearances at conventions or being a guest of honor. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The guidelines are just that, guidelines. I think the real problem with this case is that the subject is probably notable, but doesn't fall under traditional notability criteria, to me that says there's a problem with the criteria, not the subject. It's unrealistic to expect someone in any fandom to be in news articles, ect. That does not mean they are not notable. In this case, I'm not sure if he is or isn't, but I think it's worth looking into. Wintermut3 23:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is certainly true that a guideline carries less weight than a official policy. Guidelines can certainly be ignored if there is a good reason to do so. Still, in this case, I don't see any reason to ignore it. Anybody is notable if you look at them with a sufficiently narrow view. The trick is to have done something of sufficient significance that you are noted outside of your narrow area. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wintermut3. Anomo
  • Delete insufficient notability for an encyclopedia article. DrKiernan 20:44, 29 December 2006 (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/2_the_Ranting_Gryphon_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1137522872"