- Jim Diamond (Magician) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) (previous discussion)
- The biography has a donated copyright permission to Wikipedia.
{{PermissionOTRS|2009082910026398}}
After discussion with Prolog on a deletion review with revisions, we have an article that conforms to Wikipedia’s polices that uses a few independent sources and a primary source, which is reliable in its given context especially in sensitive situations where the person is still living. The article satisfies the actual purpose of notability, but it only partially meets the basic criteria for notability which request independent sources for article creation. It is also understood that notability guidelines are not policy for articles on people, WP:PEOPLE allowing for such exceptions WP:IAR that are reasonable for the creation of such articles. Therefore Prolog and myself are asking the Wikipedia community to come to a consensus on the proposed draft for acceptance on article creation.
Just ask yourself this simple question, does adding an article which meets rest of Wikipedia’s policies help or hurt Wikipedia in achieving its objective of massively categorizing a free flow of useful information. If adding the article helps the objective more than causing harm we should do it, or if it causes more harm than helps the objective we should not add it. Deadalus821 (talk) 04:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore (or more exactly permit new draft into article space) This was deleted under WP:CSD#A7 which the deleted version of the article quite obviously does not meet -- it asserts significance and importance all over the lot. The OTRS ticket means that the previous G12 (copyvio) deletion is now moot. The article as it was when deleted was more than a trifle promotional, but that could be dealt with by editing. And indeed it has -- the draft is far less promotional and far more encyclopedic in tone. There might still be questions about sourcing, but that would be a matter for editing or an AfD, not a speedy such as we are now asked to consider reversing. Frankly i wouldn't hesitate to reverse even without a new draft -- with this one this is a slam-dunk IMO. DES (talk) 07:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As I wrote on my talk page, this was deleted for many reasons. It was (intentionally or not) circumventing the creation protection on Jim Diamond (Mega Genius), it was created after a final warning not to create promotional pages, and it again was practically identical to the earlier attempts (correctly) deleted under G11 by other admins. I was sloppy with the deletion reason, but as I understand it, salt means salt. Prolog (talk) 11:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I note that Jim Diamond (Mega Genius) was never deleted by AfD. It was speedy deleted several times, with the substantive reasons being G11 (promotion) and G12 (copyvio). (it was also blanked at one point.) The OTRS ticket deals with the G12, and i don't think the draft is promotional at the speedy deletion level. Since the former reasons for speedy deletion do not apply to the draft, restore this and let the matter be brought to AfD if any interested editor sees fit. Salting does not mean an eternal ban. Ideally the creator should have come here first, but missteps in procedure, even mis-steps in bad faith, are not punished by deleting otherwise valid articles. I will grant that the version you deleted was quite promotional, and a G11 speedy would not have been unreasonable. DES (talk) 18:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse based on the new draft, it doesn't appear that it would pass an AFD and arguably could be an A7 speedy. Mere membership in Mensa and similar clubs isn't considered a claim of notability for our purposes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought we overturned incorrect deletions, not passed judgment on whether something would pass afd. the claims in even the original version are claims that would pass A7. DGG ( talk ) 15:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would decline an A7 "performed in theaters and nightclubs throughout the United States, and appeared frequently on television" are claims of significance. "Executive Vice-president of the National Heritage Foundation, Inc." and "Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President of The Houdini Institute, Inc" also at least suggest significance. Sources might be called for at an AfD, but this (the draft) isn't IMO subject to speedy as it stands, and might well pass an AfD, depending on the quality of sources. I note two news stories from reliable sources are cited in the draft. DES (talk) 18:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding AFD survival and sourcing, the problem with those two sources is that they are simply recycling a press release from the subject. The apparent lack of independent sources for any of the often-wild claims, in the deleted version or in the draft, makes the content highly suspicious, even hoaxalicious. And I googled. At the moment, I am not convinced that Jim Diamond the genius and/or the magician even exists. There is someone marketing products with that persona, though. Prolog (talk) 04:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The stories cited in the draft are reporting on this person's publications, specifically on his so-called "Stupidest Statement Awards". Obviously in reporting on such a publication, they quote extensively from it to show what it is. That is not, in my view, the same as "recycling a press release". Indeed, all other (currently unsourced) claims aside, I suspect he is at least arguably notable for this publication alone, as a satirist. If the other statements about his life cannot be verified, they can be challenged and removed from an article. DES (talk) 05:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources do not provide any information on the subject beyond what is contained in the press release, so I certainly don't see a basis for a biography per WP:BLP1E. It would be pretty odd to write an article on a satirist/magician/genius if there isn't even a single source describing him as such. "'''Jim Diamond''' is a [[Man|guy]] who calls himself '''Mega Genius''',<ref1> and issues the "Stupidest Statement Awards" annually.<ref2> {{stub}}" doesn't seem very encyclopedic. Prolog (talk) 07:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I can confirm the OTRS ticket is valid. Stifle (talk) 21:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am speaking here of the draft, not of the old versions, when i say i would decline an A7. DES (talk) 02:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow recreation more or less per DES and restore if an old version is needed for some reason. I agree it may not make it past AfD, but as far as I can tell it has never made it _to_ AfD. Hobit (talk) 22:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse A7 and allow recreation There's nothing particularly compelling in the lead paragraph that asserts notability, and there's a whole lot of cruft to wade through: the deleting admin can be forgiven for failing to notice an assertion of notability in the body that isn't in the lead. At the same time, of course, A7 allows recreation automagically, and with the OTRS ticket confirmed I see no reason why this couldn't be used as the basis for an actual article on the guy. Jclemens (talk) 01:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- While anyone can make a mistake, I do think that an admin ought ideally to read the entire article looking for assertions of significance before accepting an A7. But whether the previous article was properly speedy deleted or not, it does not seem to me that the draft would be properly subject to any of the WP:CSD. DES (talk) 02:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- agreed-- d judging by the lead paragraph is below the expected standard of an admin or any good editor. . DGG ( talk ) 15:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is the epitome of TL;DR. It's 17k (four screenfuls of text on my laptop) of mostly irrelevant assertions. If it had been 300k, containing assertions of notability in the body but not the lead, would a deleting admin have been expected to wade through the entire thing? Of course not: overlooking claims buried in text is an error, but certainly not an actionable one. If an A7 is wrong, the best thing to do is simply resubmit the article with the notability assertion firmly ensconced in the lead. Jclemens (talk) 20:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow recreation per DES. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow recreation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow recreation. Although I'm not certain I'd recommend keeping this in it's present form at AfD, the draft does not meet any speedy deletion criteria, including [[WP:CSD#G11] and WP:CSD#G4. Thryduulf (talk) 12:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn It never was an a7 speedy. " repeatedly on television on all three major networks: NBC (KSL-TV), CBS (KUTV-TV) and ABC (KTVX-TV)." is an assertion of importance. It is not enough to keep an article if unsourced, and there is a certain reluctance about keeping pages with so strong a promotional air, but it was not so much so as to fall under G11. Copyvio of course is a sure reason for deletion, but that is no longer the problem. I, like the others, am not happy with the proposed version , and in particular think we must remove will remove the IQ material unless sourced to an unquestionably reliable source as an extremely unlikely claim--and even so, I would want it worded as "according to X, ..." unless there is a true peer-reviewed study in an academic psychological journal of high reputation. DGG ( talk ) 15:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow recreation. I certainly agree that this matter would easily be resolved with an additional independent reliable source. I fully understand the desire to uphold encyclopedia articles that are fully independent of the subject even though policy does allow self published material if it is reasonable. I do consider it biased that the IQ material must be independent while the rest of the self published material accepted, although I realize the simple intent for complete satisfaction. Here is an even better encyclopedia look you are asking for, please view the modified draft. In addition I could take it out the IQ material if it is not necessary for notability. If this is about a reputation of fact checking related to the website, please look at the intelligence briefings, particularly How to Begin Deprogramming Yourself, The Great Mystery of Jack the Ripper Series or A Lesson In Prediction. Deadalus821 (talk) 02:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
