Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Booth (second nomination)

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 of the debate was delete and earth salted. This is not just a recreation, this is the third time User:Richardbooth has created this article, making it the second recreation following its first AfD. That goes beyond a faux pas, in my view. The majority for deletion in this renomination is not overwhelming, but the arguments that this serial self-promoter is notable are hand-waving - no external sources, no evidence of awards won or suchlike. Mr Booth, Wikipedia wasn't a vehicle for promoting yourself last September, it still wasn't in December, and it still isn't in May. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Booth[edit]

Entry was recreated after it was deleted a year ago for being a vanity page; author Richardbooth has ignored request for explanation. Folajimi 13:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Not a notable filmmaker, vanity. As per previous nomination. I'm not sure how notable Nick Tatham is either. - Hahnchen 13:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • One thing at a time ;) -Folajimi 13:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Richard Booth should redirect to Richard George William Pitt Booth, the bookseller and self-proclaimed King of Hay. David | Talk 13:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article admits this is a local project. But good luck. Tyrenius 16:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As I posted on Folajimi's page, even though he denies it: "My page was created by my team at Final Cut Films (www.finalcutfilms.co.uk) after I directed a music video earlier this year for signed music artist Nick Tatham. I also made a feature film two years ago, readily available on DVD (which was shown in English cinemas and is featured on IMDb), and I am directing a short film with Equity-registered actors this summer. I make my living as a filmmaker." This is NOT a vanity page and you will find that IMDb backs up my claims. I am a professional filmmaker who has been featured on British TV (BBC South Today and ITV1), cinemas in the south of England and on DVD through Final Cut Films and Xenon Films. Richardbooth 21:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I stand corrected. Your remarks were uncommented, and another user had left me a message shortly after you did. Please be sure to sign your posts in the future.
As for the nomination, creating an article on yourself is still considered to be in bad taste. According to the third subsection from the project page dealing with vanity articles, you have committed a faux-pas:
The key rule is to not write about yourself, nor about the things you've done or created. If they are encyclopedic, somebody else will notice them and write an article about them...
Independent filmmakers are not disqualified from inclusion in the encyclopaedia; however, allegations of conflict of interest is fair game here. Folajimi 01:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Richardbooth. While he probably should have left somebody else to write his article (as Folajimi said), still notable so deserves article. --Fbv65edel (discuss | contribs) 01:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as it is a recreation of previously deleted material: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Booth - CSD G4. The page should have been tagged by the administrator who deleted it the first time with a {deletedpage} tag. Apparently this was not done, allowing for a recreation to be done. Before this page can be recreated, by WP policy, it needs to be sent to the Wikipedia:Deletion review for permission to recreate it. Brimba 02:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Sorry, not a notable filmmaker for wikipedia. Just because you're in IMDB and have done a couple of shorts doesnt make you notable. Vanity article. Come back in a few years when you've become more well-known and have more of a portfolio. Bwithh 05:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Sorry if I was unclear but one of my employees at FCF created my page, not me. In terms of notability I have been reviewed and interviewed by English media with my 90-minute feature film Live for the Moment, screened at UK cinemas and released on Region 0 DVD. 193.195.73.66 10:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think his notability trumps the potential faux pas of creating an article about oneself. Richard, even creating an article about someone you work for fits in the same category, because it's nearly impossible to be unbiased and maintain WP:NPOV. That being said, I stand by my first statement, and I will always say that artists are underrepresented here due to systemic bias. If it takes an artist making his own entry to get him here, I can live with that. He's clearly making significant contributions in his field. Aguerriero (talk) 19:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Point of Information. How does the nomination of this article contribute to the idea of systemic bias? Also, is there a valid argument to counter the points made by Brimba and Bwithh? Folajimi 00:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think that the typical active user here is inclined to favor articles they deem worthy or appropriate; for example, there is a proliferation of articles about exceedingly minor technical phenomena, and all kinds of cruftish minutae (and I mean that in the warmest way possible) but similarily minor artists are usually treated as deletion fodder. That is systemic bias.
Notability arguments per Bwithh in this AfD are weak, considering his accomplishments. Also, they are inaccurate and indicate a dismissive attitude toward the arts. Shoot first, ask questions later. He directed a music video for a major recording artist, and has a feature length film that screened in UK theatres. How does that equal "a couple of shorts"?
As to the comment of Brimba, the criteria for speedily deleting an article based on being a recreation hinges on it being "substantially identical" to the original article, which according to WP:SPEEDY an admin is responsible for determining. In other words, not me, and not Brimba. If it is determined to be the same article again, then I will accept its deletion. And then I will re-write it. Aguerriero (talk) 13:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-on. Need for clarification:
  1. Could you give examples of the "cruftish minutae" you alluded to? (Since I am asking, my contributions are fair game for illustrative purposes.) Perhaps it will help explain how this nomination contributes to the notion of systemic bias, a question which has yet to be answered.
  • I don't have any specific examples, and certainly not within your contributions. I certainly didn't mean to imply a personal bias on your part; only a systemic bias. I am speaking of things like articles for specific video game maps, articles for minor television characters, etc. The community in general will come out in strong support of things like this (as well they should) but not of similarly minor cultural contributors. Is that more clear? Aguerriero (talk) 16:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. As for the "...arguments per Bwithh in this AfD are weak, considering his accomplishments..." remark, whose accomplishments are you referring to? Bwithh, or the subject of this AfD?
  1. It seems that there is some conflation related to the deletion review process. Articles which have been deleted can be recreated [at will]; however, reversing (i.e. "resurrecting") a deleted entry requires a deletion review. Folajimi 15:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, thus my point that it is up to an admin to determine if the article has been recreated or reversed. If you view the article Richard Booth from the old AfD, it still shows the current iteration. I am unaware of a way to view the previously deleted iteration for comparison's sake. Aguerriero (talk) 16:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More Follow-on. It is clear as he light of day that this article is substantially similar to the deleted article, and should have been sent to a deletion review before being resurrected here. No one should have taken it upon themselves to over ride an AFD conclusion. It is not an excessive burden to send it to review. It is disrespectful to the other editors who took the time to review the original and vote, to say that their votes mean nothing, and you will over ride them because you know better then they what should be included in WP. As per what you said: “which according to WP:SPEEDY an admin is responsible for determining. In other words, not me, and not Brimba.” So let it be. Brimba 15:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is it clear as the light of day? Do you have a record of the previously deleted article? If you view the article Richard Booth from the old AfD, it still shows the current iteration, check the history. I do not mean to be disrespectful; it has not been established that we are voting on the same article as the one that was deleted before. Aguerriero (talk) 16:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable enough, faux pas notwithstanding. Silensor 23:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, my portfolio is expanding this summer as I have been hired to direct another music video for En Masse Music & Production Ltd., as well as directing a script of mine entitled "Ashes to Ashes". Both will feature professional performers and will be shot in the south of England. Richardbooth 07:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. The spectre of systemic bias raised here by Aguerriero is little more than a red herring. To claim that contributors are incapable of maintaining a neutral point of view is an inappropriate smear on all those who submit articles to the main space. I had invited the user to examine my contributions to find information which will help make the case for such bias. Casting such aspersions is absurd; the preponderance of my contributions has to do with artisans with little or no recognition. To put it mildly, shills disgust me; it behooves me to establish notability without resorting to their tactics.
As it currently stands, the notability of the entry nominated for deletion here is suspect, at best. The cavalier attitude presented in some of the replies towards the author's faux pas does little do neutralise the appearance of impropriety regarding this matter. (It should also be noted that Aguerriero is determined to recreate this entry — regardless of the valiidity of any arguments put forth for the entry's AfD nomination.)
The author should have known better than to create an autobiographical entry. At the moment, it is unclear who the role model for such unbecoming conduct is; certainly not Jimbo Wales... --Folajimi 13:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Well said. We have all stated our opinions and the consensus seems to be that the article needs to be deleted. I stand by my claim that systemic bias exists for artists, whether you want to admit it or not. I am not compelled to examine your contributions, because one person's contributions do not tell us much when discussing a community-wide idea. I sincerely apologize for anything that you construed as a smear.
Further, you requested this page be deleted because its recreation violated process; you have yet to address my question as to how you have established that. This AfD turned into half process debate/half notability debate, so I am curious about why we are really deleting this article. If it is deleted because it was illegally recreated (meaning it is "substantially identical") then I think it is appropriate for me to re-write it, establishing notability. You can note that I'm "determined to recreate this entry" all day. While you're at it, note that I'm determined to make Wikipedia the best place I can, by opposing deleting of articles I think benefit the community. If it is deleted because the community decides it lacks notability, then I will let it lie. As a side note, the credibility of your process arguments is severely diminished in my opinion, due to your voting twice in your own AfD. Aguerriero (talk) 14:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Surely a solution to this problem would be to allow another user, like Aguerriero, to rewrite the article and thus avoid claims that one of my employees has been biased? It could be written to a Wikipedia standard with a more encyclopedic feel and presentation. Richardbooth 08:39, 27 May 2006 (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/Richard_Booth_(second_nomination)&oldid=1138300312"