Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phillip Nelson

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. Deleted as a combination of G5 and G7. Only meaningful edits besides those by the indef-blocked editor and their socks/meats were by Qworty, who advocated deletion. See discussion at bottom of AfD. Drmies (talk) 15:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip Nelson[edit]

Phillip Nelson (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)

Note: Comments by trolling sockpuppets of one user have been struck out: see below for further details. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Despite repeated unsuccessful attempts to create an article on this subject, he still appears not to be notable.

All of his music was released on a label called "Fireburst Entertainment". A Google search reveals that this "label" is only associated with this individual. That is, it appears to be self-published/released. The music does not appear to pass the guidelines at WP:MUSICBIO.

The acting appears to be: 1) a self-made TV documentary about himself about LGBT issues, 2) a role in a non-notable television series (no article, no imdb entry, nothing), 3) a role in a non-notable short film, and 4) productions that have not even be released yet. Does not meet WP:NACTOR. (Correction: I made a mistake about the nature of the documentary when I was looking up info on this subject. It does not change my nomination position, though. Singularity42 (talk) 11:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The references are mostly built upon the subject's own website, imdb entries, amazon.com and other related websites, facebook, press releases, and websites anyone can edit.

Simply put, Mr. Nelson's repeated attempts to use Wikipedia to promote himself should finally be put to rest. Singularity42 (talk) 11:05, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Blatantly promotional, reliant on primary and unacceptable sources. If this has indeed been persistently recreated, perhaps it's time to salt. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 12:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have tried to comment on the deletion page, but until now, I was unaware of how to post it. Also, I am a female. I represent Phillip Nelson through my modeling agency. You can delete this page to your liking, but facts indicate that is more than enough proof and links about his careers and accomplishments. I have also added more links to the article. It is clear that you have a grudge against my client. I would like to thank you for showing me exactly how Wikipedia I can informof my current and future clients about your "standards." Also, I have submitted the comments (on the deletion forum) to my lawyer revolving the defamation of character on Phillip Nelson (all of Phillip Nelson's endeavors/careers are legit and real). I even tried to added the reference number from his pending titles on IMDb, which will post within a few days. I will inform Phillip Nelson about these issues, since he had no knowledge of this Wikipedia page being created. With that said, you (Wikipedia) does not have permission to use any of the images and signatures that were displayed on the Wikipedia page. If you do I will proceed against you with legal action. I do not condone Wikipedia, nor will I allow the mockery of my client. I request that you take opinionated judgments elsewhere. --Wm55 (talk) 23:22, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* KEEPit shows that his and this page is legit with some reliable sources. I say keep because there will be more citations and sources added as his coming stuff is released. He is notable.

  • I have added many citations and reviewed numerous Wikipedia article on other celebrities pages. For example: Mandisa contain a total of 5 links (references), my client contains 34, yet her page is not being deleted or targeted? It is clear that there is a biased opinion and accusation about "Phillip Nelson." What kind of service monitors Wikipedia. They should indicate whether to not the page meets the criteria. No service should pass opinionated judgments. One of the previous reason this page was deleted was because op copyright issues. I then I re-wrote the article and submitted it only to have another "new" error conflict the page. Why is there always a different reason on each deletion. The moderators indicated it is written in a promotional tone, but look at Mariah Carey's page, I wrote the page in the same format and style. --Wm55 (talk) 23:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First, that is a legal threat, so under our no legal threats policy, you may be blocked. You are also stating the subject as your client. You are not allowed to write articles for your clients under WP:COI. These are not opinionated arguments, the people here are pointing to policies, something every article must pass.
You claim that we are not allowed to use any of the images and signatures that were on the page; actually, when you upload pictures, you do so with the intent to share. You do not own articles. As far as I know, we don't have a grudge against your client. Despite what you think, we aren't some cabal of people who deleted with bad intent. Thekillerpenguin (talk) 23:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there's no guideline prohibiting writing an article about one's client, associate, or relative--it's just strongly discouraged, and articles like this are textbook examples on why WP:COI is so rarely transcended, all the more so because they're usually written by new WP:SPA accounts. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 00:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not in favor of salting, as this person may meet guidelines in the future. The article as it stands is an atrocity, but I could see the possibility of something decent. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't find any evidence that the TV series has been shown anywhere. Modelling for Calvin Klein is a nice addition to a C.V., but not enough to establish notability. Bielle (talk) 00:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Call me a sourpuss but some (not all but some) of these sources seem legitimate. I think that there are a few reliable sources on here and there could easily be more.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 00:35, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not a sourpuss at all. Perhaps you can identify the sources that are both reliable and establish notability per guidelines, and elaborate as to what suggests that there could easily be more reliable sources. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 00:45, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well for one thing he has an IMDB account. Isn't imdb one of the most important sources for actors and models? If I'm wrong I will gladly step down especially since I do not know much about the guy.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 00:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm sorry, but having an IMDB account doesn't mean anything. Anybody can get one and then start posting things, true or not, about himself on it. It does not constitute a reliable source--WP:RS--for our purposes on Wikipedia. Qworty (talk) 00:55, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right, per WP:IMDB. I think some users are trying to invoke future notability, that phantom condition addressed at WP:CRYSTAL. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 00:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IMDB is a useful source for movie and TV fans, but it's typically only considered reliable (with some degree of wariness) for cast lists... and being in IMDB is not a ticket to notability. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay well for my final attempt what about the vast amount of news sources about his life especially the hate crime incident and his film (or films I couldn't tell if there was more than one)? If that dosn't work I'm withdrawing my keep.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 01:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not trying to influence a change of mind--rather, I'm batting this around so newer users can better understand how this works--but this circles back to my previous question: which sources are reliable and establish notability? Most of the ones provided are WP:PRIMARY, or establish only existence, not notability. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 01:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a vast number of news stories about him. I see one story about his being gay-bashed in college, but that is not sufficient, because of WP:BLP1E. Qworty (talk) 01:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But I think it is made clear that he is not only notable for that one event but also his roles in some of his work although some seems to be impossible to find.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 01:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You know this might not be a good reason but I think I'm going to keep mine as a keep because I think there is a possibility all other keeps might be made invalid because they seem to be WP:SPA and I do want this article to have a chance. I stand by support for the (incredibly few) reliable sources.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 02:35, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing here to substantiate that his presence in any of these productions was noteworthy, i.e., not a bit of coverage from reliable sources, no newspaper, magazine, or credible e-zine coverage. This is smoke and mirrors, propagated by a publicist. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 01:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you promise me this article won't be salted incase this man does become famous I'll change my vote to delete.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 02:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neither I nor anyone else can make such a promise--that's the decision of the closing administrator. Nor do I think it's appropriate to suggest such a quid pro quo. And as I said earlier, I've no interest in swaying a 'vote'. We're just discussing the status of the article, and whether or not it meets Wikipedia guidelines. Like a number of editors who've weighed in here, I've seen hundreds, if not thousands, of these, and have a better than average sense of their qualities or lack thereof. Keep this in mind: the closing admin will not be tallying yes and no votes, but reviewing the article and the discussion here on their own merits. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 03:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the issue is not whether he exists, but whether he's considered "notable" by wikipedia standards. That usually has to do with, "Who else is talking about them?" And that question may be answered by the time Qworty (talk · contribs) is done with it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* Bulleted list item'. keep' I have seen worse pages with less sources. This page has. Numerous reliable. Sources. It states that there is movies coming out in the future. Logitc states that those citations will be added with the other reliable sources on this page. I and I am sure many others would consider this notable. Plus his following/ fans would possibly agree since. I assume hey purchase his releases. --Smurfvillage (talk) 01:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)— Smurfvillage (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

    • You're a WP:SPA that has suddenly popped-up here. Care to explain that? As for the rest of it, you are utterly wrong. We are not concerned with what might be happening in the future--please read WP:CRYSTAL. Also please thoroughly read WP:RS, since you need further guidance in this area as well. Qworty (talk) 01:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*KEEP- IMDb IS. Reliable source. Every entry in the IMDb database has to be reviewed and accepted. Other wiki pages on actors use their IMDb accounts as sources. And it states by the page creator that there are 2 reference codes that show proof that IMDb is adding the discussed titles. There are many interviews, and audio interviews that show the notablity.— Credibility1981 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

NOTE: I have inquired at ANI if a CU can have a look at what's going on here. Editors, keep your cool; these matters will be dealt with in the proper manner. Drmies (talk) 02:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course. On both counts, you are quite right. Thank you. Qworty (talk) 02:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE THAT THERE WERE 35 RELIABLE SOURCED BEFORE MANY OF THE PEOPLE ON THIS FORUM DELETED THE BIOGRAPHY, ALONG WITH, SOURCE LINKS!!!! THIS SEEMS TO HAVE GOTTEN ON A PERSONAL LEVEL TO SOME. THE CU NEEDS TO SEE THE HISTORY WHERE THE SOURCES HAVE BEEN DELETED!!!

  • Delete this article is an exercise in promotion by someone affiliated with the subject, who is not notable. Facebook, IMDB etc are not reliable sources, and sources written by the subject do not confer notability. Bizarrely the best sources concern the subject's role on the receiving end of homophobic violence[2][3], but that doesn't confer notability per WP:NOTNEWS. To rebut some of the concerns raised above: we do not have a grudge against the subject and would apply the same standards to anyone else in the same position, speculations that the subject might be notable in the future aren't good enough, and the raw number of citations is not a metric of notability - what counts is the quality of those citations. Hut 8.5 09:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the uninitiated, here's a link to a version with 34 footnotes [4]. Read WP:RELIABLE, then go through the sources and their content individually. Wikipedia has guidelines, thank goodness, and those who strive to subvert them and make accusations of personal conspiracy usually are concerned with a single agenda, not the integrity of the encyclopedia. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 11:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note:
  1. I have struck out comments by Credibilty1981, Smurfvillage, and Movieuk. They have been found by checkuser to be sockpuppets of one user, and they have vandalised other editors' comments on this page. Their contributions seem to be substantially trolling.
  2. The creator of this article, Wm55, has been found by checkuser to be a sockpuppet of another editor who had repeatedly created the same article, and who had eventually been warned of a likely block if she created it yet again. The article would have qualified for speedy deletion as created by a blocked user in violation of their block (G5) had it not been for the fact that Qworty has done considerable clean up work on the article, so it no longer qualifies as having "no substantial edits by others". JamesBWatson (talk) 12:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that kind of sucks. No good deed goes unpunished, but since I'm clear out of trouts I'l platypus Qworty. Drmies (talk) 14:47, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A platypus for your trouble, Qworty!
Hold on thar, Baba Looey. If Qworty were to revert his own edits, would that re-qualify the article for speedy deletion? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting question. As a professional antfucker, I'm inclined to say 'no' since they are part of the edit history, and by reverting they're even more part of it. What if their edits are rev-deleted, or oversighted? And then we say that a platypus ate them? Drmies (talk) 14:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Qworty did endorse deletion of the page above, so I think you could reasonably delete it as a combination of G5 and G7. Hut 8.5 14:59, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Well, it occurred to me that since Qworty voted for deletion and posted various counter-arguments to those who wanted it kept (trolls or otherwise), he might be willing to revert his article edits. Not that it matters very much, as the article will almost certainly get deleted (again) and this time should be salted and peppered in order to prevent Betty's pal from re-creating it yet again. But I just wondered about the rules. I'm guessing Qworty wasn't aware of these technicalities. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So ordered: deleted and salted. Drmies (talk) 15:18, 2 October 2012 (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/Phillip_Nelson&oldid=1138228395"