Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armands Strazds (3rd 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 per concerns over notability and self-promotion. Guy (Help!) 11:06, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Armands Strazds[edit]

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

Does not meet any criterion of WP:BIO. Autobiography (the username Suranadira of the creator and main contributor of the page, is the first word of the title of the main article by the subject).

Apparently this is the third AfD, the first one resulted into a delete, and the second one, closed by a non-admin, resulted in a keep. D.Lazard (talk) 11:48, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems Mr. Lazard has problems of his own: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Daniel_Lazard Just saying:) Suranadira (talk) 13:10, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but then he's actually notable. Just sayin'. E Eng 17:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng: I am happy for him. Suranadira (talk) 19:40, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suranadira, consider carefully before answering: are you denying that you are Armands Strazds? E Eng 19:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EEng, thanks for the compliment! I wish I were Armands Strazds, who doesn't?! But then, I am quite happy to be who I am. Suranadira (talk) 19:55, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suranadira, please learn to indent your posts properly. So how do you explain [1]? E Eng 20:43, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EEng, I much liked the book, and the username was available. Suranadira (talk) 20:51, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I believe that. E Eng 19:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suranadira, "thanks for the compliemnt..." is one of the most artfully evasive answers I've ever seen. I'm not a lawyer, but I'll bet a lawyer would appreciate it as a ~~piece of~~ work of art. And I've seen EEngs history of contention on his Talk page. Nonetheless, please, "yes" or "no". Tapered (talk) 04:04, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually not the right question. Editors here are not required to divulge their identities. The right question is whether Suranadira has a conflict of interest with this subject. Editors here are required to divulge their conflicts of interest. So, Suranadira, do you have one, yes or no? —David Eppstein (talk) 04:35, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected, and since I use a pseudonym, my bad. Tapered (talk) 04:42, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Eppstein No, I don't do COI editing. In particular, I have no interest, financial or otherwise, in promoting, whitewashing, or selling anything concerning or related to Armands Strazds person or work. Suranadira (talk) 23:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. And for everybody else: being singularly focused on the subject of this article does not necessarily imply being the subject, nor having a conflict of interest with the subject, so I see no reason not to take Suranadira at their word on this. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:45, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't the focus, it was this. E Eng 00:09, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:55, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since we can assume the subject, who's written his own article, has put his best foot forward, this is a clear delete, since all the refs are either non-independent, or passing mentions. 'Upon some of Cato's friends expressing their surprise, that while many persons without merit or reputation had statues, he had none, he answered, "I had much rather it should be asked why the people have not erected a statue to Cato, than why they have."' – Encyclopaedia Britannica (1797) E Eng 17:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC) P.S. Check out the influences! [2][reply]

@EEng: Wikipedia is a practical source of information, not a status symbol. If you have a status (like Armands Strazds), you don't need status symbols. Suranadira (talk) 19:34, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then I guess he doesn't need an article. And please learn to indent your posts properly. E Eng 09:17, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only real source is the Latvian Musical Information Center bio. That's not enough for WP:GNG, WP:MUSICIAN, or WP:ACADEMIC. See also two closely related AfDs, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rational numerals and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delta numerals.—David Eppstein (talk) 18:04, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons already discussed on the other afds. Blythwood (talk) 20:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per nom. I see no case for WP:GNG. This is just self-promotion.--Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 20:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of notability per other cases.L3X1 My Complaint Desk 20:58, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He has 3 (apparently independent) Latvian bios/interviews, an article about his failed political run, and various mentions in other places, which seems like enough for WP:GNG. There are apparently big NPOV issues (that should be tagged/fixed), but AfD is a decision between "an extremely biased article with verifiable sources" and "no article at all"... --Mathnerd314159 (talk) 21:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews are never independent. Can you list, here, the specific sources you're talking about? E Eng 23:20, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mathnerd314159: second request. E Eng 09:19, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The three bullet points at the end of [3]. So in particular [4] [5] [6]. I guess the first two are from the same site, but still... --Mathnerd314159 (talk) 17:15, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first item is a straight (and very short) CV obviously supplied by the subject. The second and third are interviews, and interviews have zero notability value. E Eng 19:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zero? See Wikipedia:Interviews#Notability. #2 is at least prepared, although they are pretty softball questions and the interviewer is a fellow musician. #3 is probably the strongest, actual reporter [7] and some research etc., in an (imprint of) a national newspaper. Plus some new sources: he's #23 in this list of Latvian bands, and has his own Mime type registration. So if nothing else he's notable under Wikipedia:Notability (software) for being recognized by IANA as part of computer history... :-) --Mathnerd314159 (talk) 05:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. I should have said "epsilon notability value". E Eng 05:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - in the previous AFD numerous references were provided (to the point the AFD was withdrawn). Between those and what Mathnerd has pointed out, GNG has been met. Nfitz (talk) 23:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:07, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:07, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete our sources for inclusion were much laxer in 2008, and it was sometimes wrongly thought that interviews could add towards GNG. We have since then come to understand that especially for living people we need to have a higher bar of notability to have any chance of the project ever being considered reliable. Strazds does not pass our current notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:34, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As the sources are in Latvian, I cannot tell if any of the sources are articles about him. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The info links at the top of the page yield almost zero, so this polymath hasn't had much overt impact on the English speaking world = no WP:N. None of the references in the article come back as reliable, dedicated, secondary sources. And it's fun to ask for a delete on this since some of the article's editors have disguised other Wikipedia articles as outside sources. A polymath with no notoriety in the English speaking world. Delete. Tapered (talk) 06:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources I've examined (thanks to a popular, search engine-based machine translation service) are passing mentions. The GNG isn't met - there has to be Significant coverage in reliable, independent sources and that just isn't there. As a side note, the pretence that the page creator isn't the subject of the article is beyond a joke. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:05, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreeing with everyone above, this is unnotable. —JJ Be rs 04:00, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Original AfD was delete, but then it wasn't? REFUND? AfD 2 had only 4 votes.L3X1 My Complaint Desk 15:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The closure by "delete" of the original AfD was on 28 June 2006, and the article has been re-created on 16 December 2006‎ by Suranadira, who was, under the account Turdus, the main opponent to the 2006 deletion (see [8] for this change of username). D.Lazard (talk) 16:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Turdus"? How... euphonic. E Eng 16:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Using GS cites as a proxy for academic notability, the subject has an h-index of 2.5, which is lower than many graduate students. It is observed that there are sources in Latvian, but given the worrying COI in this case, I do not think these sources should be given the benefit of the doubt. It is extremely unlikely that an academic with such a low h-index is notable under GNG. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Nowhere near enough for notability, either academically or in his other activities.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete even if this subject was notable based on independent, reliable sources, this article would require a complete rewrite to meet NPOV and BLP, so WP:TNT applies. Jytdog (talk) 07:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Interviews and passing mentions only, article propped up by the subject or associates. TheValeyard (talk) 18:41, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 13 chuck 3 keep= no consensus. I am reconsidering my vote per Mathnerds comments. I suggest ~~non-admin closure;~~ result no consensus, and leave it for another 6 months.L3X1 (distant write) 16:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think most editors experienced in AfD know this already, but as a long and contentious discussion, with possibly earlier discussions to consider, it should be left for an admin to close. It is not among the appropriate closures for a NAC.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:56, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is based on the strength of arguments offered, not numbers. Three people who think a CV and two obviously staged "interviews" meet GNG don't outweigh 13 who see through that. And even if numbers counted, 13-to-3 is overwhelming. E Eng 17:12, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So Nfitz and Mathnerd dunno what they're talking about? Also Blythewood, JJbers, and my votes would go under the tally, not towards a consensus. I have no idea why NAC went through my ehad to my fingers, but it is certainly a bad idea. L3X1 (distant write) 18:35, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is clear consensus to delete. A non-admin closure of no consensus would be disruptive. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:14, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I support there being a consensus to delete, looking at the most well-developed comments. Blythwood (talk) 19:06, 10 March 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.