Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Tomicki (2nd 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. Looking at the keep votes, I'm not moved my numbers of subscribers nor number of casual mentions nor comparisons to other similar articles. WP:GNG is about sourcing and significant coverage and there is no indication this criteria has been met. As for salting, I don't see sufficient cause at this time. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 02:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

William Tomicki[edit]

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

Non-notable, and the inclusion of misc. items like winning the lottery makes this into the equivalent of a self-indulgent autobiography. The books are not even in worldcat. The Chicago Tribune article is a pure press elease, and so are the others DGG ( talk ) 22:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as WP:CREATIVE #3, founder and editor of ENTREE travel magazine with 12,000 subscribers and 30+ years old,[1] it has been reviewed in Chicago Tribune, NY Times, NY Times, LA Times. It was also reviewed in Travel & Leisure and Vogue. -- GreenC 02:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw William Tomicki apparently wants the page deleted (see comment below). I believe people with marginal notability like this should have the right to remove their Wikipedia page if they want. It's probably not a valid reason to !vote delete, but I am withdrawing the Keep. -- GreenC 12:38, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment here. -- GreenC 21:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vanity and autobiographical as indicated by the article creator's lack of any other contributions. MiracleMat (talk) 10:32, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They do mention him and his creation in various major newspapers. So he passes WP:CREATIVE #3. Dream Focus 13:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the guy really does want his article deleted, then delete it. Was he just stressed out from the negative comments in this AFD, or did he have another reason? Dream Focus 13:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- .: I would suspect it was stress, considering the letters he has written, posted elsewhere.Trackinfo (talk) 03:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He seemed to make a concerted effort to remove the page not just a momentary lapse of judgement. Personally I agree with his assessment that he has been "under assault", though I don't believe it's a conspiracy ("forces that have aligned against me") just the nature of Wikipedia's ruthless truth seeking that can be harsh and arbitrary. Given BLP and the subjects obvious distress over criticism I figured it was best to withdraw my Keep. Having a Wikipedia article is not necessarily always a good thing for someone it can be a potential liability to constantly monitor, he may have come to that conclusion as well. -- GreenC 03:50, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're right it was stress. -- GreenC 21:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 01:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Absurd to think that publishing a travel newsletter qualifies as "CREATIVE". Most of the "references" are about the publication, and most of those aren't evenly exclusively about it, but as part of a group. There's not a solid source about him. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 01:25, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I saw two comments on my personal page that my article contribution was indicated for deletion. I apologize if this has caused any problems! Some of the comments on here said that I was making an autobiography about Tomicki, which was not my intention for sure. Sorry again if that's what it reads like and if there's anything I or anyone should cut to make it better, please do. Honestly, I subscribe to ENTREE and thought Bill could have a page like some other ones I've read online. When I was adding information, I used the ENTREE site bio for help. I tried to only reference what was not associated with him though. I think that part was okay, but probably my submission needed work. I clicked on the other editor's WP:CREATIVE link and I think he matches these criteria for writing and creating. I'm going ahead and taking off some info to start. Let me know what else to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abrahmsii (talk • contribs) 02:28, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Not notable. Greglocock (talk) 03:33, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As a peerage geek, I highly doubt this claim of the title "Lord Millbourne" and the two supposed knighthoods, which he claims. There's nothing on the net to back any of these claims up that isn't him in an interview. The only thing that explains more is this which would claim he has a distinction from the French Legion of Honour, which is what a Chevalier is (he's not on any of the lists I've found), and I'm not aware of the claimed Portuguese title even existing. Also, you don't buy titles in the United Kingdom unless its a fake one. JTdale ^Talk 16:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC) Addendum The United Kingdom's roll of the peerage seems to indicate it's fake, he's not listed and neither is the title. Roll of the Peerage. Just a thing to note when considering notability since titles play into that. JTdale ^Talk[reply]

See his explanation: "I never indicated I was A Chevalier of the Legion d'Honneur. Nor would I. Never mentioned those words. That is a serious infraction. I was made a Chevalier of the de l'Ordre Des Coteaux De Champagne in Reims, France in 1994." There may be similar explanations for the "Lord Millbourne" claim. None of this is mentioned in the article nor should it be without reliable secondary sources but I think we need to be careful about jumping to conclusions about a person being "fake" without all the information. His notability is based on CREATIVE, as a writer, per previous comments above, for which secondary sources exist. So let's not attack (calling him a "fake") his credibility based on guesses and incomplete information, see WP:BLP. -- GreenC 03:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

His titles were mentioned in the article when I commented, which is why I raised it. He didn't explain the title Lord Millbourne. JTdale ^Talk 03:30, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

His "explanation" was made in February based on results of the first AfD, which only discussed the Legion d'Honneur not the Lordship question. -- GreenC 04:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He claims here[2] that it is "Lord of Millcombe". A Google search finds a manor house on the island of Lundy called Millcombe and the island was once owned by lords in the 19th century.[3] If this is the same house which William Tomicki says he owns ("thanks to a land acquisition in England in 2007, holds the title Lord Millcombe"[4]) there might be something to research further. -- GreenC 14:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The account User:Freddymcgough, who claims to be William Tomicki,[5] has recently been making edits that indicate he would like the article deleted, through Speedy Delete templates and blanking the page.[6][7][8]. Another account User:SumaraLove has been making similar edits. -- GreenC 12:38, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No matter what the possibly WP:COI subject of the article might write, assuming that it is the subject (which ordinarily should be a stretch on the internet) we should look at this article on its own merits. I would suggest the article needs some editing, deal with the peacock terms and clear up statements. I'll try to do a little clean up shortly. That is no reason for deletion. Andrew Harper's Hideaway Report is a comparable site with decades less of a history. Perhaps someone should do an article about the site too. WP:AUTHOR establishes his creation of the 30+ year institution, plus several other publications. Out of 18 sources, there are many WP:RS verifications. Trackinfo (talk) 03:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a few sources and will add a few more.Trackinfo (talk) 03:50, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For what it's worth, membership in "Chevalier of the de l'Ordre Des Coteaux De Champagne" and similar drinking and dining societies is vanity content, & should never be included. "Lord of the Manor" is not a title of notability, but a archaic British designation that is in a weird way associated with ownership of particular pieces of property, "In modern times any person may choose to use a name that is not the property of another." It is similarly vanity content--such titles are purchased either separately or along with the piece of property by people vain enough to want to use them. I have very doubts about of the objectivity of any bio here that includes such content. (and usually doubts about the notability also, because this usually implies there's nothing actually worth including) DGG ( talk ) 16:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DGG's comment makes sense assuming AGF he knows what he is talking about. I would suggest he as an editor should remove any content he thinks is peacock or mis-characterized. Maybe he could show a source that explains these details so other can learn from it. That is why we are called editors. What does not make sense is the giant leap of logic that since some part of some sentence is vanity . . . so the entire article should be deleted--which is what you are proposing with the AfD Nom. Trackinfo (talk) 18:52, 19 July 2014 (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.