Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Kadmon (character) (2nd 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. Will userfy upon request. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:09, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Kadmon (character)[edit]

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

Original AFD was muddied by some sock puppeting and a fairly unclear consensus. Though the promotional material has been mostly removed, the article is still in too much of an in-universe writing style, and the sources seem to be mostly primary. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily delete, salt, burn with fire Consensus on the AfD that closed mere hours ago was pretty clear and obvious. It does not take much review of the article, the ref's and the arguments from the other AfD to see that this "article" does not and should not belong on the English Wikipedia ES &L 14:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid original research and stick to the AfD rules. There is no argumentation in your comments. --★ Pikks ★ ^MsG 14:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At least I know the rules - you're making up bizarre interpretations that are contrary to WP:CONSENSUS ... and consensus is the BIGGEST rule on Wikipedia ES &L 14:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of WP:CONSENSUS I am not understanding well? Please explain in details. --★ Pikks ★ ^MsG 14:48, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Because the two reasons of this AfD are wrong. Here are my explanations:

In universe:

It's not in "in-universe" style, because it's clearly written that this character is a writer. There is also written that this author appears on the National TV and Radio substituted by an actor. The real voice of this person and the real look of this author is kept anonymous. To be anonymous does not mean to be fictional - fiction is something that does not exist. Somebody can write, be a source of conspiracy theories and be hidden for security/obvious reasons. I am convinced that the article explain it very well. It also says that the actor wear a mask and speaks the text written by Adam Kadmon (the writer). I clearly see that there is absolutely no in-universe kind of writing. If somebody still thinks there is something written in a "in-universe" style, please give clear examples and it's possible to assess them in the article.

Primary sources:

Actually there are only 2 primary sources out of 34 links. And they are youtube and Adam Kadmon's official website. According to the rules primary sources can be used, but cannot be the sole source of information. They must be always supported by verifiable and reliable secondary and tertiary source that are independent of the subject. In this case this condition is met. Thus the article should be kept because it fully meets WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Thanks --★ Pikks ★ ^MsG 14:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stub it or userfy it. As I noted in the first AfD, this article is currently in terrible shape, but there is coverage of the subject. In English, there's "How Adam Kadmon Made the Leap From The Kabbalah to Italian Television", The Forward, April 21, 2013 (describing him as "the mysterious and much talked about Italian television personality and conspiracy theorist Adam Kadmon, who always appears on TV with a mask to hide his identity") and a mention in a 2013 New York Times article [1] ("the show’s host, Adam Kadmon, who plays a mysterious masked vigilante who investigates topics like Ustica, underskin microchip implants and, more recently, Michael Jackson’s prophecy about Sept. 11, and favors the French missile theory.") In Italian, there's a lot of press that shows up in GNews [2].

The Italian Wikipedia article, it:Adam Kadmon (personaggio televisivo) has undergone some back-and-forth editing in the last few days and seems to have improved noticeably (at least in the most recent version I saw)[3]. Based on all this I'm inclined to think he's a notable Italian TV/radio character known for presenting conspiracy theories.

That still leaves the problem of our current English Wikipedia article, which is utterly confusing and unencyclopedic in style, replete with purple promotional prose such as "High-skilled in martial arts and t'ai chi ch'uan, Adam Kadmon is said to possess the ethics of a superhero such as not harming innocents and the tenacity of a soldier of Special Forces" and "he talk about the very important rule of the humanity's wisdom to defeat the Illuminati Conspiracy and all others world's biggest criminal organizations" and "According to the most experienced researchers in esoteric cultures, it would seem that "Adam Kadmon" is the same man called "the Deliverer" or "the Seven" respected by the world's most powerful secret societies that are silently protecting him in his efforts to improve quality of life of every human being."

So, while I think the character is probably notable, I can't bring myself to !vote "keep" for stuff like this. My suggestion: either (1) stub this thing down to a sourced paragraph or two along the lines of the sourced factual content in the current version of the Italian Wikipedia article, using the Forward and New York Times descriptions noted above to identify him, simply, as an Italian TV/radio personality who maintains an aura of anonymity and presents conspiracy theories on Mistero and elsewhere; or (2) userfy it until it's cleaned up. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your inputs. The article today was shortened and further neutralized. --★ Pikks ★ ^MsG 08:52, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stub, Userfy or Delete, for all the reasons listed by • Gene93k. If it cannot be rendered down into a properly neutral POV - without excessive conflict, sock-puppetry or effort - then delete. I hesitate to nominate for deletion outright, again for some of the same reasons • Gene93k lists above, but - speaking for myself - I am also not convinced that simply being a media personality or having articles written by third party sources in Italy is a worthy qualifier of notability for the En.Wikipedia (nor am I convinced that the sources in the article are all valid sources supporting notability), and therefore would be just as happy to see it deleted, and if it is a valid, truly notable subject for an article here, be submitted to AfC and let it pass or fail there on its own merits. besieged^talk 16:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you mean per Arxiloxos? All I did here was deletion sorting. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your edits were more coherent than some of the other contributions here! Thincat (talk) 09:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is this a real character expressing his own views uinder a pseudonym, or a fictitious character played by an actor, expressing views that may be someone else's or maybe nobody's? The article is by no means clear about this and the very first sentence is confusing. This may be why there is disagreement about whether it's in-universe. --Stfg (talk) 16:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. If it's a real person, the article title is misleading, too. --Stfg (talk) 16:59, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In short: because of marketing reasons is told to be a real "superhero" with a detailed story while it's likely to be a character by some unknown author(s). To be honest there are no serious "investigation" about his real story/identity since he's not taken into any consideration out of conspiationists' milieu. BTW I have to underline fivestore (used as a source) is the merchandise store of Mediaset's. Furthemore Edizioni Piemme is a branch of Mondadori group, currently owned by Fininvest, which owns also Mediaset itself so, definitely, both of are not supposed to be considered as neutral source. --Vituzzu (talk) 00:25, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Vituzzu, that's very helpful. --Stfg (talk) 09:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also the Bible is written and advertised by people from the same Church and Religion, like the same company. But this doesn't make it unencyclopedic. According to the rules primary sources are good if confirmed from secondary/tertiary independent references. Regards. --★ Pikks ★ ^MsG 08:49, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. There are plenty of neutral, reliable secondary sources about the bible. To imply that Adam Kadmon is encyclopedic because the bible is encyclopedic is ridiculous. --Stfg (talk) 09:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a misunderstanding, because I agree with you. I was just saying that the fact that good informations are given by primary source (which is not a blog, but the biggest and richest company in Italy) it's not bad as far as those sources are confirmed by reliable and verifiable secondary ones. My apologies if I wasn't clear, I just was trying to make some good comparison, but it looks like it wasn't a good one :) --★ Pikks ★ ^MsG 09:17, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK, thanks. But you're right, it wasn't a good comparison. You can sometimes use a primary source to cite uncontroversial information, but not for controversial information -- and anything remotely promotional is already controversial. When you say "the Bible is written and advertised by people from the same Church and Religion", what that really means is that we cannot use the bible as a source for the church's claims -- not even when there are other sources. So we cannot cite the bible to say "The world was created in six says", although we we can cite it to say "The bible states that the world was created in six days". Also, please take note of Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. The fate of this article and its sources should be decided on their own merits by WP policies, not by comparison with other articles and sources. --Stfg (talk) 10:41, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy If he's a "pseudonymous writer", then behind the pseudonym there's a real person, but no real person is a superhero, and the use of the term "character", rather than, say, "television personality", suggests fiction. There's so much ambivalence about all this that the article is certainly not ready for mainspace. There's also much concern over promotional intent, and the melodramatic "classified" in the infobox is ridiculous. I half suspect that there's a genuine notable topic hiding somewhere in here, but the present article doesn't present it. A good editor has offered to help, so I suggest userfying it to give it a chance. --Stfg (talk) 09:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Postscript Editor Baffle gab1978 has started work on improving the article. I strongly suggest not closing this until we can see what happens. --Stfg (talk) 09:11, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewed my !vote: Since Baffle gab1978 has partly stubbed it, I've reviewed it again. I'm now convinced that the subject is notable. For example, the Illuminati book is published by a mainstream publisher and sells on amazon.it, which carries 46 reviews of it (almost all very favourable). However, the second half of the article is still far too heavy with POV. The first paragraph of the Conspiracy theories section witters with paranoia about defamation and slander and how Kadmon "explained" (non-neutral term), all this cited to an interview with Kadmon himself (not neutral) linked to a web page that doesn't in fact carry the interview. The last bit of that paragraph isn't cited at all. The second paragraph of the section begins with the most ridiculous appeal to authority: "According to the most experienced researchers in esoteric cultures ...". The Critical reception is almost as bad. So my !vote stands at userfy. It would change to keep only if those two sections were completely deleted or at least confined to stating neutrally what is to be found in neutral sources. By the way, the title should be changed to Adam Kadmon (television personality), just as the Italian article is Adam Kadmon (personaggio televisivo). --Stfg (talk) 13:53, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thanks Stfg; I've checked a few of the Italian-language references, via Google translate, and it seems the person/character/pseud/whatever has been written about non-trivially in reliable sources; most of which are in Italian. Obviously we discount the blog and Youtube; and Mediaset/Fivestore seem to be primary sources, per original AfD. Of the English-language sources provided, one (forward.com) is non-trivial and the other, (New York Times) is a trivial mention. I've removed some of the nonsense from the article, and I think I can clean it up further (I've been busy IRL for the past 2 days, which is why there's been little activity). Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 06:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Darkwind (talk) 05:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy, per Stfg. I'm being charitable; the first AfD close was a good one, and one editor refusing to accept a consensus to get this fansite out of mainspace strongly tempts me to !vote delete. The article currently does not meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:ENTERTAINER, even with the few possibly-reliable Italian sources, and when the socks start to come out (this is the IP above's sole contribution to WP) that's never a good sign. If deleted, salt. Miniapolis 20:04, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actuallu it does meet WP:AUTHOR and WP:ENTERTAINER - read "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique", "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" as well as "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." and "Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.".

And a very important point. You cannot influence the notability of an article based on the sockpuppets! An article should be based on the article itself according to WP:GNG. If there are sockpuppets or not this does not have to influence the notability of the article. So your statement "when the socks start to come out... that's never a good sign" is a sign of you being influenced by sockpuppets, but remember that an article meeting WP:GNG as well as WP:AUTHOR and/or WP:ENTERTAINER has all the rights to stay, no matter what the sockpuppets do. Regards. --★ Pikks ★ ^MsG 10:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE, the article from September 21 until September 26 was highly modified (stub) by User:Baffle_gab1978. Thus, the admins should check it in the current state. --★ Pikks ★ ^MsG 10:46, 9 October 2013 (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.