Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Schlund (3rd nomination)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. Almost all the keep arguments are that it was kept twice before. It was not. The first keep would have been more accurately closed no-consensus, and the 2nd was a non-consensus close. I strongly dislike frequently or rapidly repeated nominations as potentially unfair, but this was not unfair. The delete arguments that the sources are inadequate for notability, on the other hand, are well-founded in policy. DGG (talk) 23:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Schlund

edit
AfDs for this article:
Dan Schlund (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Vanity. Notability is alleged mainly through act of having flown a Rocketbelt, and look a lot like WP:1E. Listing from WP:ANI notice to stop the warring at the article. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete does not meet WP:BIO, no independent notability and in addition, as nom states, BLP1E applies. It's mainly an ad for the "rocketman", to get to parades etc. At most, this could be a redirect to Jet pack. --Crusio (talk) 20:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are a couple of minor sources out there acknowledging that this person does, in fact, exist, but nothing that meets our standards for multiple instances of independent and reliable and nontrivial sources that demonstrate a reason why he is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Proving he has a jet pack is trivial, proving why he should be considered so important he gets a page all to himself is another thing entirely, and some people tend to forget that last part in AFD discussions. Also it's pretty clear from the page history that it was created mainly for self-promotional purposes, and that person seems to be in the background on one or more accounts trying to justify its inclusion because he doesn't want to lose what is essentially a free ad. DreamGuy (talk) 20:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- Sources were found in the last afd that discuss this gentleman in depth, thus establishing notability. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep for now Keep - Subject is notable as established in reliable sources. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] (See the previous AfD for more) — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  20:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go through these one by one:
Link 1 has a brief, trivial mention... and SPACE.com is notorious for reprinting press releases as is, so I don't know that it could be considered to be independent anyway. Link 2 has the exact same problems, and is even more obviously just a reprinted press release, including the promotional links and language at the bottom. Link 3 doesn't appear to be much more than a press release either. Link four is just a photo caption on a website. Link five doesn't exist. Link six is a trivial mention in a story about a another topic. Link seven is, again, a trivial mention in an article on another topic. Link eight is, again, just a photo caption.
So, if that's the best you have, you only prove the point that he's not notable. At best you could justify a short mention in another article, as that's all these articles do. To justify an article of his own you need sources about him and only him from independent, reliable sources that would demonstrate some sort of individual notability, not some sort of collective notability. DreamGuy (talk) 21:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Upon looking at them a second time, a lot of the links I gave only include a trivial mention (and #5 is MIA). The only ones with more extensive coverage are #2 and #3. For number 2, it might be a press release, but I wasn't able tell. It looked like a regular article with an author. If these two sources are reliable, I think they do establish some degree of notability. I'm lowering my recommendation to a "weak keep" for now. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  21:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Previous AFD had no consensus, and an admin listed this specifically because he thought not listing it was disruptive. And do you have any sort of justification for a keep vote other than being annoyed? DreamGuy (talk) 21:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please conform your comments to WP:CIVIL. And don't make up stories like "thought not listing it was disruptive." The article survived two AFDs and has better sourcing than half the BLPs I've looked at lately. Your refusal to accept the fact that your view doesn't enjoy consensus has led you to behave uncivilly and disruptively. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, first off WP:KETTLE on the civility claims. I didn't make up any stories (the WP:AN page confirms what I said), and your claim that there was a consensus that I am supposedly ignoring is what's totally made up. Please explain how a "no consensus" AFD vote and talk page discussion where the majority of people want the page redirected somehow means I am ignoring consensus. I'm going to assume good faith and choose to believe you are just confused (and in a bad mood) and not purposefully trying to deceive people. DreamGuy (talk) 21:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just stop. You are embarassing yourself. The admin said your edit warring was disruptive, and he was attempting to put an end to it. Your obsessive behavior is becoming creepy. Really. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's your idea of being WP:CIVIL? That admin voted to delete (see above), so he wants to put an end to it by getting rid of the article. DreamGuy (talk) 21:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was a no consensus decision three weeks ago and a keep vote 18 months ago, so I think we should use the time to determine some sense of consensus. Even right now, the entire bio section is unsourced and his main media mentions come from IMDb, which isn't a secondary source. That's not a great situation for a BLP to be in but you are right Hullaball that it's better than most BLPs. I just hope we don't get another no consensus but even then, I'd say that it defaults to keep, and everyone can just move on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was not a keep vote 18 months ago, there were more delete votes than keep votes and the rationale given to delete was solid, just as it is now. The admin who closed at best should have called it no consensus. I think he/she got confused by someone claiming there were new sources and decided to overrule the vote without actually looking at the sources. Either way, 18 months ago was 18 months ago and not relevant now. DreamGuy (talk) 21:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was closed as a keep vote. AFD is not voting, and if you want to argue about it, go complain to the closing admin. It's moot though. However, DreamGuy, if you take that same attitude to the decision over this one (namely, it doesn't matter what the closing admin thinks because you know better), someone will protect the page and we can move on. We aren't going to play my point of view games. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO, WP:SPAM, and DG's analysis of sources. THF (talk) 21:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- I agree with DreamGuy's evaluation of the sources. Reyk YO! 22:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question to Hallaballoo Wolfowitz I agree with your observation that many BLPs have even worse sourcing than this one, but I am confused on how that translates into a "keep" vote here. Doesn't WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS apply any more? I know that if the guy had been on the field during a football game for even one minute, this would translate to notability, but does the fact that the jocks cannot get their act together mean that we should do the same? --Crusio (talk) 22:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS has nothing to do with this. Whatever your or my personal opinion of this "Rocketman," the sources presented and otherwise available are more than enough to meet the GNG. See this AFD [9] for an example of far thinner sources enjoying a consensus that they showed notability. The guy appeared on one of the highest-profile TV broadcasts in the US (Tournament of Roses parade), the status of the event may not be clear to non-Americans or people who have better things to do on New Years Day than watching parades on TV. And also it seems at the Super Bowl. He has been written up in quite a few newspapers in and out of the US. (This section of his website has not just claims or unverified clips, but images of many newspapers involved [10].) I might wish that more wrtiers and professors and productivbe people met the GNG than attention grabbers like this but that doesn't might it's right to ignore the GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (1st discussion). Keep (2nd discussion). Keep (3rd discussion). That this discussion is continuing is an abuse of process. DreamGuy and his puppy are going to win their edit war by attrition because the rest of us non-compulsive editors are weary of this debate. There have been two discussions on this article, and additional comments contained in those discussions should not be ignored. For most editors this discussion was closed as a "keep". Once a consensus has been declared by the closing admin, the matter has been decided and the editors can place their attention elsewhere. Only Smooth707 and DreamGuy have continued to argue their position - which was to delete the article. What is the point of having a discussion if a dissenting editor chooses to act contrary to such discussions? I feel that what was needed to be said has already been said, discussed and decided in the two AfDs. This is an article about a person who is named Dan Schlund. The subject person is notable, and the article on this person has survived two AfD discussions. The person Dan Schlund is not a jet pack. Redirecting his name to Jet pack is not logical. He is a stunt man who, among other skills, is one of only a handful of people in the world who can fly with a jet pack, but this does not make his name a search term for jet packs. Redirecting "Dan Schlund" to the general article on jet packs results in the removal of the information on the person Dan Schlund. "Dan Schund" is not a logical search term for "jet pack", so a redirect adds nothing of value to Wikipedia, and will only result in the removal of the article's information from general view. That result would be contrary to the consensus of the two discussions. I hope that when the closing admin reviews the opinions, that he takes into his consideration the opinions of the previous discussion, for this discussion is really just a continuation of the previous one. I also hope that there be someway to restrain DreamGuy from debating EVERY SINGLE COMMENT that he disagrees with. His argumentative positioning is deterring open debate. Most editors do not need such confrontation in their leisure time. And finally, I hope that once this discussion is closed, a new discussion will not be allowed for at least another years. Repeatedly re-opening the discussion until the DreamGuys get the result he wants is simply wrong. Esasus (talk) 03:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I count 6 votes for deletes. Excluding myself and DreamGuy, 4. I am not forcing my opinion on anyone; nor is this an abuse of process. The issue was discussed on the talk page, and then brought to an AFD by an editor other than myself or DreamGuy. The last 'discussion' you are citing was a 'no consensus'. In addition, the first AFD nom was over a year ago. In this case, a 3rd nom is not as shocking as you tend to believe. I have read your comment above thoroughly, and I happen to disagree with it thoroughly. Frankly, I do not care if you see it may way or not, but I accept the WP:VOTE guidelines, and I suggest you do the same. smooth0707 (talk) 04:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is Dan Schlund a jetpack? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If an author, about whom not much is known, would have published just one very notable book, we would have an article about the book and probably redirect the author to the book. Does that mean that this author now would be considered to be a book? Please don't be silly. --Crusio (talk) 22:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not trying to be silly, Crusio. The subject has a brief mention in a single sentence in the article jetpack. He didn't invent the jetpack, which rather invalidates the comparison of a author to his novel. I am no saying the article should be kept; I am arguing that - no matter what - it should not be redirected. At the risk of demonstrating less than AGF, it never should have been. It was a cynical attempt by at least one editor to neutralize a previous AfD that they disagreed with, and I for one took exception to the effort. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An admin previously uninvolved with the article listed it to try to get a more clear cut consensus over a contentious issue. The only people being disruptive are those who violate WP:AGF with their comments. DreamGuy (talk) 21:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Meets WP:NOTABILITY as outlined in the General notability guidelines. Notability is supported by multiple independent sources, and specifically in The Oklahoman, , the Sheena Coffey, and the Los Angeles Daily News articles that are cited in the article. Untick (talk) 14:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and comment - The appearance of this at AN/I means many new editors may come to comment, so early closures based on recent other AfDs may not be reasonable (I'm one who found this this way.) Delete - he's not notable for anything other than doing his job, which is cool, but hasn't received much coverage. Redirect to Rocketbelt or Jet Pack for coverage of use in mass media and the burn, which is worth noting at that article as a hazard of the machine. ThuranX (talk) 18:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - I'll ask again: is the subject of the article actually a jetpack? If not, he should not be redirected to such. As the directed-to article only addresses Schlund in one sentence, its a bad redirect. Thanks for "crossing the street", ThuranX. So nice to see you again. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I gave a clear answer in my above comment. ThuranX (talk) 14:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not "one event" - this is his specialty. Are the Wallendas "one event" (high wire)because they only have one specialty? Coverage in many places (albeit frequently just noting his Rocketman act somewhere). Collect (talk) 12:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, completely fails WP:BIO (including WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:ATH, depending on where you stick him) and WP:N. He does not have any real significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources, including as noted above in the evaluation of those found. Only a few minor mentions in a few reliable sources. Bulk of the article comes from his own site (not third party) and IMDB (not WP:RS. He has also not "made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment", no evidence of a large fan base (as in evidenced by those pesky reliable sources, etc etc. Can't believe this actually survived the previous AfDs. I see no valid reason to redirect this to jetpack either. He neither invented it nor is a significant person in relation to it. It just, apparently, uses it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sources establish WP:N. Artw (talk) 04:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:BIO as "the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject". WP:COI couldn't be clearer about not using the word "vanity" as it is considered "accusatory and discouraging" as well as "not helpful, nor reason to delete an article." --Shunpiker (talk) 05:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep External references establish notability. This was such an easy decision, I'm inclined to suspect the motives of the nominator. LK (talk) 09:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Although we should assume good faith, your snide comment towards the nominator makes me think that you did not read the above discussion (or even just the nomination) at all. There are enough "delete" !votes above to make it clear that the "keep" case is not as clear-cut as you seem to think. --Crusio (talk) 10:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, hey, hey - let's all remain polite if we can, please. Lawrence was expressing a perhaps unfair sentiment, but your reply was rather unnecessary. Let's try to remain civil. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Arcayne, based on above, you're the editor who had an unfair response to everyone else's remark. [11] [12]smooth0707 (talk) 18:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And yet, I've managed to keep some civility, haven't I? And you might want to reconsider what you feel to be "fair". Either way, it hasn't really much to do with this AfD, and I am not really sure why you'd get upset over me asking folk to remain polite. Focus, please. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I think that my "I think you did not read this" remark is perhaps in a different league than "I'm inclined to suspect the motives of the nominator". That remark was not "a perhaps unfair sentiment", it was a completely uncalled for accusation and if Lawrence had bothered to read the above discussion, he would (a) know what the motives of the nominator are and (b) see from the length of this discussion that the case is not clearcut and that several good faith editors argue for deletion. I really fail to see how my comment was incivil.--Crusio (talk) 19:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My comment wasn't solely directed at you, Crusio. Your comment was inspired by an uncivil one and was in retaliation for it. By definition, it deviated from the purpose of the AfD, and we all know how these things tend to quickly degenerate from there. If Lawrence jumps off a cliff, does that mean you have to as well? Just keep cool, and folk will discount Lawrence's accusations in due course. By responding to them with more than a 'that is an incorrect assessment', you are buying into the drama possibly being sought, and do yourself no good. Just stay focused. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:45, 25 March 2009 (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/Dan_Schlund_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1167200037"