Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony David Jacques

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. Stifle (talk) 16:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony David Jacques[edit]

Anthony David Jacques (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Borderline speedyable vanity bio; despite the large list of refs, most are to the subject's own site; no WP:RS refs demonstrating non-trivial coverage. The only editor of this page also created several articles about necktie knots the subject designed: The Jacques Knot, Templar knot, Excalibur knot, Devil Makes Three knot, Corkscrew knot.OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pretty much exactly what the nom says: vanity bio with no reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can't find anything that makes this person notable in a reliable source. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 17:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Concur with vanity, notwithstanding the below. Nelson50T 23:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello, I'm the creator of the page. The personal site links are primarily due to the fact that Manarchy Magazine went under and the content disappeared. It was then archived by the subject for posterity.

In direct response to the initial post, however, of the 74 remaining references, and minus the 10 for archived Manarchy articles, over 50 are to a third party site with which the subject was only affiliated by solicitation. That is quite a majority. This person has over a decade of creative work to his name in many diverse fields. He keeps a fairly private life, but myself and several of his fellow writers (Caleb J. Ross, Craig Clevenger, Richard Thomas) felt like this page was long overdue, and a few of them have helped in creating it.

There are also (unfortunately) many copy-writing and ghostwriting projects which cannot be disclosed due to non-disclosure agreements for a few years yet. I've just been notified that the Installation Solutions copy-writing gig must be removed from this page due to the same type of agreement, and this must be done before the new site goes live.

All that is to say, we did this page for Anthony because he is one of those guys who keeps the rest of us going, he's always involved in our projects on some level, and we felt his diverse body of work merits mention. Irelocus (talk) 22:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Would removing the content about knots and cars (Misc) help the article be more encyclopedic? I suppose adding that stuff was a bit non-essential. Or would any other edits help? I'd really like to know what would improve the article? Thanks! Irelocus (talk) 22:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia is not free webhosting for posting vanity bios, period. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your response. I was looking for constructive input on improving input. On the sample discussion page for articles for deletion, I noticed one user suggested that people who are published outside of being self-published, which this subject is, have a level of notoriety inherent. I believe this subject falls under that category, but if not, I would certainly like to understand the difference. Thanks!~ Irelocus (talk) 00:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is more than fair, even if other content is removed. The majority if this subject's bibliography is professional, often solicited work.Irelocus (talk) 00:22, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Sorry, Irelocus, but he doesn't (yet) meet the Wikipedia criteria for notability. Let me explain. This is an international encyclopedia, and in order to have an article here a person must be notable, which basically means famous. The way we recognize when a person is notable is that other, unrelated, reliable sources have written significantly ABOUT him. So anything he himself has written does not count toward notability. Things said by his publishers do not count for notability. That fact that he uses a "real" publisher is not enough for notability. Things said by most blogs do not count; that includes goodreads, because it basically writes about everything and everyone that is ever published. If his writings get reviewed in significant sources like major newspapers, or if he wins a significant award (significant means a truly notable award, not something like the book-of-the-month at his hometown library) - if those things begin to happen then we can consider an article about him. But at this point in his career he hasn't achieved that level of notability. In addition to the sources you cited (which are not actually 74 sources since many are duplicates), I also did a search and found nothing to make him notable. In other words, it isn't about your writing; there is nothing you can do to "improve" the article if the subject just doesn't meet Wikipedia's criteria. Maybe someday he will, but not right now. --MelanieN (talk) 01:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. As for your "Bonny Hicks" precedent, that was from 2006. The current criteria for notability of an author can be found at WP:AUTHOR. --MelanieN (talk) 01:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Thanks for your response, MelanieN. If this is the direction it goes, I think I get it. Is there anywhere I can archive this for safekeeping pending more reliable sources (reviews, readings, etc...) over the next year or so? I've recently lost several other articles which were deleted without discussion or notice, and I'd hate to think I'd be starting from scratch on this one as well. What's the protocol for this? How do you guys typically handle this with posts you've created, etc...? Irelocus (talk) 01:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You can request that the closing administrator "userfy" it to you. Here's what that means: After a week or so, the discussion will be closed by an uninvolved Wikipedia administrator (that's a volunteer editor who has been entrusted with some extra tools such as the ability to delete articles). If you ask them, by putting a request here, they will usually agree to put a copy of the article into your "userspace." There you can see it and work on it, but it is not part of the encyclopedia. It is "safe" in your userspace; no one will hassle you about it or try to delete it. You can work on it, add sources, etc. If sometime in the future you want an honest opinion about whether the improved article is in encyclopedic shape, you can ask me at my talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 05:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's pretty cool, actually. Is that possible for some other pages that disappeared? They were smaller, I didn't even get a heads up on them. :P I mean, there's a record somewhere, right? Irelocus (talk) 00:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you want this article userfied, you still have to ask for it. You can do so here on this page, with a comment along the lines of "Attention closing administrator: If the result is "delete", please userfy to me." Or you can wait to see the result here, and if it is deleted, you can ask the deleting administrator then. As far as the others that were deleted - I assume you mean the articles about the knots - there is no chance of any of these ever becoming Wikipedia articles, so why do you want them? Just for your own records? You can ask the administrator who deleted them, on their talk page, if they would userfy them to you, or email them or otherwise give you a copy. It would be their call. If I were that administrator, I might hesitate to restore them, even in your own userspace, because userfying is basically a way of incubating an article until it is ready for inclusion here. You may just have to reconstruct them yourself - if you want a copy. --MelanieN (talk) 16:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
About the other articles, some of the knots may be featured on a TV show for summer/fall 2015, so yeah, it'd be nice to have a copy. At that point they may have enough notoriety to be included here. Additionally, we may be setting up our own wiki around men's fashion and accessories in the near future as well.
I just thought it'd be nice to not cover the same ground if unnecessary. Thanks so much for your help!Irelocus (talk) 16:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(PS: I have contacted the user who deleted them, and he doesn't seem too interested in being helpful. On his talk page he says that is not the place to talk to him, that I should talk here, but then he isn't talking about things here, either. Seems silly. Again, ah well.)
  • Attention closing administrator: If the result is "delete", please userfy to me."Irelocus (talk) 16:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment what I actually said that I wasn't going to go in to depth explaining policies whose links I'd already provided to you. I'm not interested in restoring articles to your userspace that will never become articles. Wikipedia is not free webhosting. You apparently already have a blog; post about necktie knots you made up there. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, I'm Anthony. I'd actually appreciate if this page were deleted. I have no desire to have people I don't know able to edit details about my life or decide what is important or relevant. Especially given the self-importance of some people involved in this process here. I'm the one who decides that stuff, and I'm the one who gets to be the a**hole when someone gets it wrong.

Notwithstanding, "ire" and I go way back. She's an enthusiastic individual who might make someone a great publicist, with a little restraint, I suppose. That said, I'm glad she forgot to log off the other day. I have since taken extra measures on my machine here (and I'll also be locking my office) and will see if we can (or need to) set up a block for wikipedia, though that may not be as easy a sell with IT as blocking youtube or facebook.

If you could go ahead and delete that ireLocus account as well, as that's my alias and my old email address, I'd appreciate that.

Best, ADJ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.87.233.180 (talk) 23:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can sympathize. I've had my fair share of overzealous admirers creep into my office to write articles on Wikipedia about me and the various hat-wearing methods I've invented. The autobiographical article will be deleted in a few days at the conclusion of the AfD process. Regarding the account, please see WP:DISAPPEAR. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:16, 1 February 2014 (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/Anthony_David_Jacques&oldid=1087639518"