Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tres Watson

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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tres Watson[edit]

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

Promotional biography of non notable individual. Lacks coverage about him as opposed to coverage of an org he is involved with duffbeerforme (talk) 02:18, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - plenty of references to Watson as the key person in the sources. If the sources did not mention Watson and instead just mentioned the organization there may have been more reason to put them aside, I don't see that doubt here. --Fæ (talk) 10:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per weight of RS.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Founder of two notable organizations (ie with articles on Wikipedia) and enough coverage out there about him as an individual. Edwardx (talk) 13:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well justified by sourcing. Spicemix (talk) 01:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Founder of two notable organizations and enough coverage out there about him as an individual. FFA P-16 (talk) 03:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Canvass for a Cause. Most of the sourcing regarding Canvass activities (except the Cal Humanities interview) include just passing mentions of Watson, use of him as a spokesman for group. The Gadget Guys material comes basically down to two sources: the San Diego LGBT News piece, and that's a local weekly so that's of limited weight, and a HuffPost "contributor" piece. Contributor pieces are not primarily under HuffPost editorial control (per the reference's page, "Contributors control their own work and post freely to our site.") and thus do not have WP:RS status. This is an article created by a now-banned user and maintained largely by a sock of that banned user and an editor who claims to be the subject of this article. Much of the information contained is not actually in the references indicated. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish the article to be merged, you can raise a proposal on the article talk page. If you wish to see a conflict of interest reviewed, then this would be better raised at WP:COIN. For this AfD I would rather see a keep/delete discussion focused on reliable sources; the other issues you are raising are tangents to that decision and appears to duplicate your existing comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBT_studies#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FTres_Watson. --Fæ (talk) 15:32, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is a perfectly cromulent !vote in an AFD discussion, as you can see at WP:AFD. That the article is a promo piece by banned and conflicted users goes to explaining why the content should not be trusted as matching the sources. That I presented some subset of this information on some other page should not be an impediment to it being included here, as one should not presume that everyone involved in this discussion has read all of Wikipedia. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:53, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Picking up your specific comments:

Merge is not the same thing as redirect. If this article is not deleted (a keep outcome looks likely) then there is no reason to discuss a redirect, but a merge may still be a non-contentious later proposal on the article talk page.
Your claim that the article is "a promo piece by banned and conflicted users" appears to be attempting to create drama. The non-blocked user you are pointedly making claims in this AfD of acting with a conflict of interest, has already made it very clear they are uninterested in responding to drama on the LGBT studies noticeboard. If you are unable to respect that request, then I shall create a section at COIN on your behalf and that of the account in question, to avoid giving any justification for repeating these claims in different forums without first presenting the evidence for a civil review in the correct place.

Your use of cromulent and reductio ad absurdum rhetoric seems to indicate you are intending to be humorous, however when mixed with critical allegations attempts at humour are likely to be read as intending to offend or in fact be ad hominem argument. Try to avoid appearing this way, thanks. --Fæ (talk) 16:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Picking up your specific comments:

Yes, I know the difference between merge and redirect. My !vote was for redirect. I am not sure what part of that was not clear.
Your attempt to tell me how you wish me to vote appears a blatant suggestion that this discussion is suppose to run toward your fancy, and that someone whose vote does not concur with yours or fails to use a structure you invent for disagreement is invalid. You may want to consider how offensive your own comments come across before making presumptions about the motives of others. I make zero apologies for trying to diffuse your offensive discussion techniques with the light-hearted (and cromulent) invocation of the term "cromulent".
Your statement that "The non-blocked user you are pointedly making claims in this AfD of acting with a conflict of interest, has already made it very clear they are uninterested in responding to drama on the LGBT studies noticeboard" is just plain false. You appear to be assuming that this post by a user (whom I will not ping, due to their request to avoid drama) is by the same user as this one, which is a post by a different user to that first user's talk page. Unless you are claiming that a user is having a conversation with their own sock, then this statement is off-base.

Let me know if there are any questions about any of that. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:32, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry my mistake. I misread the history of who said what. I still firmly believe that COI issues should go to COIN, not be discussed here as they just muddy the waters as to whether the subject is suitable for a BLP. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For those claiming there is enough coverage about him, Where is it? Not in this advert which is bombarded with passing mentions, PR, non reliable sources and non mentions. A breakdown of current sources:

A business talking about themselves. Not independent coverage from a reliable source. Just like a press release, complete with glowing quotes from satisfied customers.
Simple news about a lawsuit. More about CFAC, mentions Watson as executive director working for them, nothing more about him.
Perez Hilton. Gossip blogger. Not a reliable source
Simple news about a lawsuit. More about CFAC, has some quotes from Watson, nothing more about him.
Appears to be a press release. About CFAC, has some quotes from Watson, nothing more about him.
About CFAC, has a quote from Watson, nothing more about him. Not a reliable source. "California Humanities is a non-profit that promotes the humanities in California in order to help create “a state of open mind.”"
About Nico D’Amico-Barbour, barely mentions Watson. Independent Media Center is not a reliable source.
Reads like a press release. Has a quote from Watson, nothing more about him.
Simple news event. Has some quotes from Watson, nothing more about him.
Simple news about a lawsuit. More about CFAC, has some quotes from Watson, nothing more about him.
Simple news event with no mention of Watson. Does not support the claim mad. Does not even mention CFAC
Appears to be a press release. About CFAC, has some quotes from Watson, nothing more about him.
dead link, dead domain, not in wayback. Consider It Done San Diego is/was a tech support company. It became Gadget Guys "Watson incorporated Consider it Done, which eventually became The Gadget Guys in December 2014". Not independent coverage from a reliable source.
a tweet?. "Check out #RadySchool alum Tres Watson's ..." Not independent coverage from a reliable source.
Business Listing
"This post is hosted on the Huffington Post’s Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and post freely to our site." Not a reliable source

This is blatant corporate spam for a man who has used Wikipedia to promote his own organisation. Spam from paid shills operating in violation of Wikipedia's Terms Of Use. Watson complaining that this afd was created due to homophobia [1] [2] is frankly offensive and distracts from the real issues. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please take these complaints to WP:COIN where you can provide the evidence and ask for a review.

Your claim "Spam from paid shills operating in violation of Wikipedia's Terms Of Use" is inappropriate. There is no evidence that anyone is being paid or is a "shill". These are serious allegations, you must provide the evidence and have a review if you persist with these. As far as we know someone may be pretending to be the subject of this BLP, it would hardly be the first time that's happened.

An AfD discussion is not the right venue to report spam, or to report paid editing, or to complain about someone complaining about feeling harassed. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The is no evidence??? Bullshit. Try looking at the sock puppet investigation listed above. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And Xyxyboy has been pretending to be someone else for over 10 years? Nice staying power. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The SPI relates to the account Brilbluterin, which made 3 edits to the article, the last being on 16 November 2016. Your allegations about paid editing and shills appear to relate to other accounts and nothing like this was said in the existing SPI case. If you want to continue to make allegations, then provide your evidence of paid editing and shill-ing at COIN or SPI, this is not an appropriate forum. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The SPI relates to Brilbluterin, who launched the article, and includes as a confirmed sock Rogercosts, who has edited the article within the past week. You may feel that the raising of COI issues muddies the water in this discussion, but whether the content is worthwhile or just a stack of promo goes to such questions as to the difference between !voting merge' (i.e., this topic belongs with that one, but the material should be largely saved) or redirect (this topic belongs with that one, but there is not much of value in this article that needs to be saved.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where sock accounts are being used, then these need to be warned or blocked if necessary. What I see here is a lot of tangential allegations about spam and paid editing which cannot be proven, and these claims need to cease. If the subject of the article has been editing it, then again, they need to be informed or warned in a civil way about why this is unhelpful. In this AfD we should have focused on the encyclopaedic notability of the subject and the reliability of sources, the rest of this is tangential fluff that should be handled in the correct place.

My opinion remains the same, I'd rather see the article kept and trimmed down to ensure that what remains is encyclopaedic and neutral. If necessary there might be a chance at having a sensible discussion about whether a merge is needed, so long as the organizations meet WP:GNG.

I suggest that from this point Duffbeerforme takes more care to remain civil and avoid making inflammatory and unsupportable allegations. Drama does not help to educate those who may be mistakenly editing with a conflict of interest, nor does it leave them in a position to ask for advice in the future.

For the sake of transparency, after writing the above, I have responded to an email request for advice from the apparent subject of the article. I have advised them to avoid any further edits to articles related to their work, and limit themselves in the future to talk page requests for corrections to avoid any appearance of non-neutral direct editing. I don't think any more action than this advice will be needed. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Before you go lecturing anyone to take "more care to remain civil and avoid making inflammatory and unsupportable allegations" please reflect on the fact that that's what you've been doing. Your repeated use of false, misleading, and exaggerated information is not appropriate. Your badgering people to !vote in the format that you want them to is also not appropriate. You do not own this discussion. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you wish. I'll stop contributing to this discussion. There's been far too much drama and unpleasantness that I find increasingly hard to just accept in good faith. --Fæ (talk) 17:43, 9 January 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.