Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Krach


 * 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   keep. Substantial changes in article pursuade several editors to change their positions. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  15:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Aaron Krach

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Aaron Krach, whose article has had considerable input from User:Aaronkrach, is an editor, writer, photographer and curator (or so we are told). "He is the former editor of Empire magazine in New York and senior editor at Cargo Magazine." Wikipedia's "Empire magazine" is not in NY; this is a different magazine. Cargo magazine is an unsourced article. He's put out two books: Half-Life (an unsourced article, kicked off by User:Aaronkrach) and the self-published (via lulu.com) 100 New York Mysteries. His work has been exhibited in a number of cities (galleries and sources unspecified). This month he's curating an exhibition that runs for a few hours on each of two days somewhere or other, according to his own website. Krach's article has been flagged as unsourced since May 2007; the article on Half-Life (an article that's recycled publicity material) has been flagged as unsourced since December 2008. That's more than enough unsourcedness, especially in view of the frequent presence of User:Aaronkrach who might be expected to know of citably reliable sources. Hoary (talk) 10:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related page because it too is chronically unsourced and about a book that lacks obvious notability:

*Delete WP:COI, and no sources, I think we should give it the boot. --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 13:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  —Hoary (talk) 10:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  —Hoary (talk) 10:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions.  —Hoary (talk) 10:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions.  —Hoary (talk) 10:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment If something in either article seems particularly silly when you happen to see it, check in the history to see if it has recently been dehanced by some Telstra IP. -- Hoary (talk) 15:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 *  Delete Now Keep, as improved; seems notable as writer. Not notable as an artist or journalist. Not sure about the novel - I'll go with consensus on that. Johnbod (talk) 16:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't believe it is possible to make an informed decision on this matter until you have actually read the novel. Before taking any drastic measures, it is imperative that we know all of the facts involved.  I have ordered my copy of "Half-Life", and will register my vote after having read it.  I would urge all of you who have voted to retract your vote, order a copy of the book, and register an informed vote once you have read it.  Thank you. Murrarie (talk) 23:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The nomination has nothing to do with the quality of Krach's work in general, or the quality of his novel. &para; Let's suppose that Cleave and Smite, Johnbod and I quickly order our copies of the book from this or that online oligopolist, quickly receive them and read them, and realize that the work is a masterpiece. What impact should that have on the article? &para; There are plenty of superb books about which it would be hard or impossible to create articles that satisfy Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and -- passing through mediocrity, mere bollocks (astrology and the like), diet quackery and so forth all the way to literary hell -- there are plenty of books (Mein Kampf, The Turner Diaries, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, etc ad nauseam) that are noxious garbage and about which articles can be created that do satisfy them (at least until vandalized by halfwits). -- Hoary (talk) 01:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete Apparently it is not notable, but perhaps more notability can be added to prevent deletion, if possible (significance of work, etc.). Olivemountain (talk) 02:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete – Article lacks Attribution to Verify WP:BIO or WP:BLP notability criteria … Delete the book as well (WP:COI). &mdash; 141.156.161.245 (talk) 03:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Violates numerous policies, as per nom, Lord Spongefrog,  (I am the Czar of all Russias!)  19:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep both articles as eminently salvagable, and send to WP:CLEANUP for a major sandblasting and proper sourcing. COI aside as the article now belongs to Wikipedia (and hopefully the author is now aware of Wikipedia's concerns with such), I have found that he was a frequent colomnist for IndieWire, is quoted by such diverse papers as Los Angeles Times and Chicago Tribune, and has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject . No one looked? And though not yet sourced, his book has received accolades such as being called a "striking debut novel" in a lengthy interview of the author by Pride Source and being well reviewed in multiple sources . Not too difficult to find. Seems they both meet the WP:GNG criteria for inclusion... and the articles might well serve the project. Simply put, they are fixable. That they have not been in a reasonable time is not a reason to delete... it's a reason to fix them. Sources are available... even if no one is putting them to use. Better to give them proper atention rather than simply deciding not to do so by deleting. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Here as always with an AfD, anyone, including yourself, is most welcome to improve the articles. I'm quite prepared to change my mind about both. In the meantime, your Google list doesn't impress me as much as it seems to impress you: although it does indeed link to a page of a website called "Pride Source", much of it is typified by Hair-raising trend ; Are mullets back? Pay-Per-View - Chicago Tribune - ProQuest Archiver - Mar 29, 2005 "Mullet is just the fun name for a trend that is actually out there right now," says Aaron Krach, senior editor at Cargo, the men's fashion magazine based ... But all the best improving both articles. -- Hoary (talk) 07:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I hate judging an article upon how it looks now and try looking at what it could become. Anyone looking at the page and history will see that I have begun then to improve it myself. Unfortunately for Krach, I will be not be able to get back to it until after work today. I'll hapily report back once its been brought into line with policy and guideline. It'll meet the GNG. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 15:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep MichaelQSchmidt's find that he has been mentioned in major news sources, proves him notable.  D r e a m Focus  14:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No. Nobody's find that a person has been mentioned in major news sources (or anywhere else) would prove that that person was notable. What WP:GNG says (after markup-stripping) is: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. / "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. -- Hoary (talk) 14:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * More than mere "mentions"... the article now includes cites to several in-depth interviews of the subject. It is not the same as when it first arrived at AfD.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Nobody hasn't commented here, just MichaelQSchmidt. And I check Google news search and the first thing is an interview the guy did about his book for a notable gay news source.   Google news shows many other hits as well for the guy.  He is clearly notable.   D r e a m Focus  15:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't claim to know which gay news sources are more notable than others, but I did notice when I wrote the comment above that there was no en:WP article on Pridesource, PrideSource, Pride Source or Pridesource.com (each of which is still red as I write this). -- Hoary (talk) 23:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That lack of an article does not mean PrideSource is not notable... it only means it is yet to be written. HOWEVER... PrideSource IS published by the same folks who publish Between The Lines and the article being cited is a reprint of an earlier aricle in that newspaper (properly atributed in the cite). See Reliable_sources/Noticeboard.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q.  07:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Lack of an article indeed does not mean that a subject is available, but it also does not, of itself, mean that a worthwhile article has yet to be written. I've looked at your link, in which you asked whether it was OK to cite something from the site, and got one answer saying yes. What you didn't ask was whether this is, as you claim above, "a notable gay news source", or indeed whether a short interview in it, together with odds and sods elsewhere, constitutes "significant coverage in reliable sources" (WP:GNG). Yes, there is indeed an article on Between the Lines (newspaper): it consists of two unsourced sentences. (Incidentally, the "Front page of a typical issue" makes it look less like an literary/arts magazine than a softcore porn magazine.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. “Half-Life” was covered by Publishers Weekly and three major LGBT publications: Out Magazine, Bay Windows and the Lambda Book Report . Krach has been extensively quoted as a male grooming expert . Warrah (talk) 21:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep well sourced article. May need some clean up and scrutiny about the sources. I commend the nominator for bringing these issues to everyone's attention, but couldn't these issues been addressed on the talk page instead of in an adversarial AFD? Ikip (talk) 07:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The issues have been raised in templates in the article itself. I suppose this AfD is adversarial in that (for example) you and I disagree and are expressing contrary opinions within it, but it doesn't strike me as particularly hostile. Incidentally, an earlier AfD dispatched a relevant article quickly and painlessly: although AfDs are often tiresome, they often aren't. -- Hoary (talk) 13:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets three core content policies and is notable since his début novel was twice nominated for award and he wrote articles for several publications. --RekishiEJ (talk) 11:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep See, this worked. At first it read like a horrible advert for the man, now it is a more encyclopedic page on an author. It has places he has written for, some awards, and generally basic stuff. I could see this in one of my old "Current Writers of New York" school pieces which I see now and again. --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 17:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we're looking at different versions of the article, or perhaps one of us is hallucinating somewhat. &para; "It has [...] some awards", you say. I see nominations for two awards, the Lambda Literary Award (incidentally, an article in which the "controversies" alone seem to be sourced) and the Violet Quill Award. &para; It was the stuff about photography that first brought him to my attention; this is subsumed within "Artist", a section that reads in full: His work has been exhibited in Olympia, Washington, New York City, St. Petersburg, Florida, and Copenhagen, Denmark.[unsourced (although the NYC claim is sourced shortly thereafter)] In 2006, his solo exhibition titled "100 New York Mysteries" was presented at DCKT Contemporary in Chelsea, New York.[sourced to DCKT] In 2007, new photographs and sculpture have been exhibited at 3rd Ward in Greenpoint, Jack The Pelican Presents in Brooklyn, Gallery 312 Online in Nova Scotia, Canada, and Massachusetts's College of Liberal Arts.[unsourced] In 2009, "Longer Periods of Happiness," appeared at DCKT in Manhattan.[sourced to DCKT] So the majority of this remains completely unsourced, and while two of the discrete claims are sourced and fully credible, no evidence is yet presented of critical attention paid to these exhibitions. &para; If this is an encyclopedic page, I worry about the state of the encyclopedia. -- Hoary (talk) 00:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep -(changing from delete) article seems to have been thoroughly salvaged, Lord Spongefrog,  (I am the Czar of all Russias!)  17:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete If his book had won a lambda award, he would be notable. But it didn't.    DGG ( talk ) 02:34, 29 October 2009 (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.