- 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. Stifle ( talk) 15:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Johnny Terris
- Johnny Terris ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
this guy openly told me he wrote his own article, deleted 2/3 of it after i made fun of it for being full of slybrags, and is totally unsourced. he's not a notable person Corpselord420 ( talk) 18:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- Comment- I believe this nomination is result of jealousy or something. The subject does fail on WP:NACTOR but he is a writer, a photographer and model too. This article survived on Wikipedia for 9 years with long edit history, I would have voted for delete but nominator failed to make valid case for deletion. Search results do not emit much info either. Hitro talk 19:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- While it's true that he is also a writer, a photographer and a model, what the article as written fails to do is to
properly source that he's
notable for any of it (the mere fact that a person exists is not enough to qualify them for a Wikipedia article.) And the amount of time that an article has existed does not create an exemption from Wikipedia's content policies; lots of stuff that shouldn't be here flies under the radar because people aren't noticing it enough, so an article that fails as written to meet the rules can be considered for deletion whether it's been here for a minute, an hour, a day, a week, a month, a year, a decade or a century.
Bearcat (
talk) 21:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- I guess you didnt get my point. I am well aware of the policies of inclusion at WIki. Of course, age of the article is no reason for inclusion. What I meant was that there may be very thin possibility of retrieving useful information from revision history. I have nominated two articles few days back for deletion who are more than 2 years old with no solid revision history.Current size of the article is 2475 bytes but it used to over 5000 bytes 3 years back. Article should be definitely deleted in its current state. Revision history shouldn't be ignored at all.
Hitro
talk 13:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- Well, for the record I have randomly spotchecked about a dozen past versions in the article's edit history, and even at its absolute longest there's never been the first indication of a reliable source — the only statement in the entire article that's ever had a reference tag after it at all was a simple assertion of his ethnic ancestry, which was sourced to a profile on modelmayhem.com (i.e. a primary source supporting a statement that had no bearing either way on his notability or lack thereof.) So no, there's nothing in the edit history that could be readded to salvage this as a keepable article. Bearcat ( talk) 01:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- I guess you didnt get my point. I am well aware of the policies of inclusion at WIki. Of course, age of the article is no reason for inclusion. What I meant was that there may be very thin possibility of retrieving useful information from revision history. I have nominated two articles few days back for deletion who are more than 2 years old with no solid revision history.Current size of the article is 2475 bytes but it used to over 5000 bytes 3 years back. Article should be definitely deleted in its current state. Revision history shouldn't be ignored at all.
Hitro
talk 13:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- While it's true that he is also a writer, a photographer and a model, what the article as written fails to do is to
properly source that he's
notable for any of it (the mere fact that a person exists is not enough to qualify them for a Wikipedia article.) And the amount of time that an article has existed does not create an exemption from Wikipedia's content policies; lots of stuff that shouldn't be here flies under the radar because people aren't noticing it enough, so an article that fails as written to meet the rules can be considered for deletion whether it's been here for a minute, an hour, a day, a week, a month, a year, a decade or a century.
Bearcat (
talk) 21:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 19:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 19:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
No properly sourced indication of notability, and the fact that he wrote the article himself triggers conflict of interest issues. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 21:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. For me, the question of who started this article is a non-issue. What is a problem is the lack of any evidence of independent reliable sources (news articles, critical commentary, or anything else) discussing the subject, his oeuvre of underground films, or any other parts of his creative career. I couldn't find anything. I will be happy to reconsider my opinion if any suitable sources are identified. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 00:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- Well, no, COI admittedly isn't in and of itself a reason to delete an article; a COI article can be kept if reliable sources and a legitimate claim of notability are available to salvage it with. But if those things aren't present or available, then COI does come into play as an additional reason why the article isn't keepable. Bearcat ( talk) 00:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete No notability demonstrated - this is a sea of red links and no sourcing provided for any of it. Tvoz/ talk 08:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. Stifle ( talk) 15:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Johnny Terris
- Johnny Terris ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
this guy openly told me he wrote his own article, deleted 2/3 of it after i made fun of it for being full of slybrags, and is totally unsourced. he's not a notable person Corpselord420 ( talk) 18:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- Comment- I believe this nomination is result of jealousy or something. The subject does fail on WP:NACTOR but he is a writer, a photographer and model too. This article survived on Wikipedia for 9 years with long edit history, I would have voted for delete but nominator failed to make valid case for deletion. Search results do not emit much info either. Hitro talk 19:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- While it's true that he is also a writer, a photographer and a model, what the article as written fails to do is to
properly source that he's
notable for any of it (the mere fact that a person exists is not enough to qualify them for a Wikipedia article.) And the amount of time that an article has existed does not create an exemption from Wikipedia's content policies; lots of stuff that shouldn't be here flies under the radar because people aren't noticing it enough, so an article that fails as written to meet the rules can be considered for deletion whether it's been here for a minute, an hour, a day, a week, a month, a year, a decade or a century.
Bearcat (
talk) 21:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- I guess you didnt get my point. I am well aware of the policies of inclusion at WIki. Of course, age of the article is no reason for inclusion. What I meant was that there may be very thin possibility of retrieving useful information from revision history. I have nominated two articles few days back for deletion who are more than 2 years old with no solid revision history.Current size of the article is 2475 bytes but it used to over 5000 bytes 3 years back. Article should be definitely deleted in its current state. Revision history shouldn't be ignored at all.
Hitro
talk 13:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- Well, for the record I have randomly spotchecked about a dozen past versions in the article's edit history, and even at its absolute longest there's never been the first indication of a reliable source — the only statement in the entire article that's ever had a reference tag after it at all was a simple assertion of his ethnic ancestry, which was sourced to a profile on modelmayhem.com (i.e. a primary source supporting a statement that had no bearing either way on his notability or lack thereof.) So no, there's nothing in the edit history that could be readded to salvage this as a keepable article. Bearcat ( talk) 01:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- I guess you didnt get my point. I am well aware of the policies of inclusion at WIki. Of course, age of the article is no reason for inclusion. What I meant was that there may be very thin possibility of retrieving useful information from revision history. I have nominated two articles few days back for deletion who are more than 2 years old with no solid revision history.Current size of the article is 2475 bytes but it used to over 5000 bytes 3 years back. Article should be definitely deleted in its current state. Revision history shouldn't be ignored at all.
Hitro
talk 13:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- While it's true that he is also a writer, a photographer and a model, what the article as written fails to do is to
properly source that he's
notable for any of it (the mere fact that a person exists is not enough to qualify them for a Wikipedia article.) And the amount of time that an article has existed does not create an exemption from Wikipedia's content policies; lots of stuff that shouldn't be here flies under the radar because people aren't noticing it enough, so an article that fails as written to meet the rules can be considered for deletion whether it's been here for a minute, an hour, a day, a week, a month, a year, a decade or a century.
Bearcat (
talk) 21:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 19:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 19:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
No properly sourced indication of notability, and the fact that he wrote the article himself triggers conflict of interest issues. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 21:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. For me, the question of who started this article is a non-issue. What is a problem is the lack of any evidence of independent reliable sources (news articles, critical commentary, or anything else) discussing the subject, his oeuvre of underground films, or any other parts of his creative career. I couldn't find anything. I will be happy to reconsider my opinion if any suitable sources are identified. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 00:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- Well, no, COI admittedly isn't in and of itself a reason to delete an article; a COI article can be kept if reliable sources and a legitimate claim of notability are available to salvage it with. But if those things aren't present or available, then COI does come into play as an additional reason why the article isn't keepable. Bearcat ( talk) 00:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete No notability demonstrated - this is a sea of red links and no sourcing provided for any of it. Tvoz/ talk 08:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- 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.