Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Peterson

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. JohnCD (talk) 12:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Peterson[edit]

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

Not notable, barely referenced possible hoax and WP:COI. This whole article is very odd. The Allmusic link is genuine enough, and there is an overview and reviews there. But nothing he's produced seems remotely notable. The movies and TV shows on Imdb have single figure review numbers and often all the reviews are similarly (oddly) formatted. The reference to a title track written by Nile Rodgers and Bernard Edwards appears to relate to the 1980 album King of the World but this isn't hinted at here. The websites referred to do seem to have existed, but a quick look on the Wayback Machine doesn't suggest they amounted to much - definitely not enough to get 2 million users! The COI applies to user:mnemonicof. Nearly all their edits relate to this man or his projects. Global Edge Mnemonics also seems to be the name of the company which runs the websites mentioned in 'internet projects'. I was also going to nominate all the albums, films and tv shows (as far as I can tell, never broadcast or distributed) associated with him but presumably they can be speedy deleted if their creator is deemed un-notable. Stu.W UK (talk) 01:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, along with daughter articles. No good evidence of notability, intermixed with hoaxery. This is a bizarre one. Looks like the guy is creating one big walled garden using various web sites. IMDB has a web that is all about Peterson: a producer who has produced only Peterson's videos, actors who have only acted in Peterson's videos, music by Peterson's alter ego who does music for nothing but Petersen's videos, all reviewed by people who watch nothing but Peterson's videos. Some (not all) of his videos probably exist, but I can't find any notability to them that isn't a trivial mention of their titles, or online advertising written by Peterson himself. Due to the evident self-promotional nature of cited sources it is hard to trust any of them in order to find out what's real, in order to salvage any of this. The most probable story here is: "I'm going to use free internet sites to make myself famous." Oh, and his claim of a famous web site with two million users - I'm going to call that an outright hoax. 88.112.59.31 (talk) 08:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete, this article, while certainly lacking in content and clarity, is a genuine article and certainly not a hoax, Nick Peterson has worked extremely hard to create all the films, TV, music and books that he has so far in his life. Created as a one-man-band producer and not supported by any massive corporation of worker bees and sales drones. The points raised by the user Stu.W UK are somewhat valid, but only to the extent that there need to be improvements and more information added to this article. Unfortunately, because of a few inflated egos and too many over-eager so and so's the Wikipedia project seems doomed to ultimate failure, which is a real shame but I propose somewhat inevitable. Mnemonicof (talk) 13:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- — Mnemonicof (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and child articles as well. Non-notable, no reliable sources, self-promotional. It might not be a hoax, but WP:ITEXISTS isn't enough to merit an article, I'm afraid. No prejustice against recreation if subject can be reliably sourced as being notable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it certainly has all the elements we usually see in hoax articles, though as noted above that doesn't really matter because simply existing isn't enough for an article. I certainly hope this is a hoax, because that's far better than the idea that someone can spend a quarter-century making this much stuff and receive not even a shred of success or recognition as a result. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:33, 25 February 2011 (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.