Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Ozee


 * 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.  So Why  15:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Aaron Ozee

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

self published author, no actual evidence of notability (the article does say "[owner] of the world record title, "Most Books Published By A Teenager," The refs, as expected, are either press releases or notices. He seems to have written many of them himself.  == Pleas  DGG ( talk ) 04:35, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Discussion page was created with a broken template. I've fixed the template and will leave any refactoring of text to the nominator.  -- Finngall   talk  15:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete most sources are non-WP:RS, either self-initiated or blogs. Article seems more like an advert than a bio.-- &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;  &#9743;(ring-ring)  02:47, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Seems all unreliable sources are removed and more reliable news sources are introduced.The poet has published around 10 notable poetry books. Abrahamherews (talk) 04:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC) — Abrahamherews (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * You should be aware of the fact that "notable" has a specific meaning on Wikipedia - a little different than it is in the general language. None of his books is notable according to Wikipedia's definition. --bonadea contributions talk 20:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Incredible source material such as press releases and self-written content has been removed from content present on page. New references have been added to further support facts presented throughout. 11:10, 25 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.191.128.46 (talk)  — 99.191.128.46 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete - the assertion that he was one of the youngest authors ever to be published has no secondary source, and furthermore it is manifestly incorrect given that he is self-published. The recordsetter.com website is not a reliable judge of this by a long chalk, as evidenced by their FAQ page. The sources currently in the article are mainly primary so there is no sign of WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR being met. Too soon for an article, I believe. --bonadea contributions talk 20:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong delete a non-notable poet who has not yet become impactful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:52, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Ozee appears to be under the impression that this is "his official Wikipedia Page". A common enough misconception of course; I wonder how it can be made more obvious to people that Wikipedia is not any kind of marketing platform. --bonadea contributions talk 23:09, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Good evening, Wikipedia users. This is Aaron Ozee addressing you all. I was recently made aware that a few fans of mine had gotten together and established this page to represent my success in writing. Despite the fact that it was an honest and kind gesture, it appears great controversy has emerged since its creation and is now seen as a threat to Wikipedia. Please know that even though I would like to see the page remain, I understand that if it is the majority opinion of those remarking on this discussion board that it should not belong then so be it. I appreciate you all taking the time to review it and post your opinions. And you must all know that it was never in my intentions to introduce stress to this growing community over my page and that it might be better off deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.28.182.131 (talk) 23:36, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment : I am one of Aaron Ozee's fan who want to see his wiki page live. Google news and Google books have enough and more reference about Aaron Ozee which makes him notable enough to have a wiki page according to Wiki guidelines Abrahamherews (talk) 15:03, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment : The nominator of the deletion tag stated that there is no news articles to support the title Most Books Published By a Teenager, Here is the news article from reputed Suburban Life Media Poet Aaron Ozee of Addison sets teen world record. Thus the nomination doesn't stand. Abrahamherews (talk) 15:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC) — Abrahamherews (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

*Strong Keep Claims made about having achieved world records are well supported through sources such as those published by My Suburban Life" and by evidence presented by Abrahamherews. 12:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC) Striking, as this IP address (99.191.128.46) already !voted once above. First Light (talk) 09:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - Some local coverage, but not enough to meet WP:GNG. Claims of various publishing records are of questionable validity given that all of his works are self-published.  And Mr. Ozee, might I correct a couple of misconceptions: 1) There is no "great controversy" or "threat to Wikipedia"--this is merely a discussion as to whether an article on you meets Wikipedia's notability standards for biographies.  2) This isn't a vote, and the administrators' assessment is not based on a majority vote, but on the strengths of the arguments as they relate to Wikipedia policy.  No "stress" involved, merely the continuing process of improving the encyclopedia.  Literally hundreds of articles are under assessment by the community in this way at any one time.  -- Finngall   talk  02:21, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete For all the reasons Nom, Finngall, and Bonadea have articulated. E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I have inquired about Record Setter on WP:RSN.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * comment World record This wikipedia article proves the credibility/reliability of recordsetter website. Moreover the reply you got in WP:RSN is by a person involved in the current discussion. So i think thats not ethical to conclude about recordsetters authenticity. When the World record page of the wiki itself talk much about recordsetter. Abrahamherews (talk) 14:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The continuing evaluation of which sources can be considered reliable is also part of the endless process of improving the encyclopedia. Just because links to recordsetter had previously been included on several pages doesn't necessarily mean the site had been the subject of any kind of scrutiny before now.  Please assume good faith of the part of your fellow editors (all of whom have extensive experience with Wikipedia's processes and procedures) rather than assuming a lack of ethics.  -- Finngall   talk  17:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Unreliable sources have been successfully removed from this page and have been substituted by more reputable and concrete sources suitable to support all content present. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.203.137.210 (talk • contribs) 11:56, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Statements made about only local coverage supporting this page are unfounded. Articles released by outlets such as "The Huffington Post" span nationally and credibly back the facts presented throughout. Also, in regards to the claims made about Record Setter, those too are not substantiated. Record Setter is one of the largest world record organizations in the world besides the Guinness Book of World Records (think of them as a direct competitor). Sources such as those published by "Shaw Media" accurately support the records listed on this page and ultimately tie into the overall credibility of Record Setter as an organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.203.137.210 (talk • contribs) 12:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment : Here are the news links to prove recordsetter.com's credibility - > nypost.com, Forbes.com , journaltimes.com , cartoonbrew.com , Dailytimes.com ,thenextweb.com , Journaltimes.com. I found many more articles in web to prove the credibility of recordsetter.com , but mentioning only 7 here . Thus the article must not be deleted on grounds of credible world record. Abrahamherews (talk) 03:10, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Of these links, only the one from thenextweb.com discusses recordsetter.com in any kind of detail. In my view, it would be a decent reference for a Wikipedia article on recordsetter.com (which, by the way, doesn't exist yet) but it doesn't really say anything about why we should take it as a reliable source for records or anything else.  -- Finngall   talk  04:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * comment : These are only few links, there are many and many more in the web. Reliability is a factor that comes into account with news mention and featuring in trustable news outlets and there are many such for recordsetter.com , and i dont think , there will be any article about "is guiness book reliable for wiki" . Reliability or credibility is something that is already proved for recordsetter.com through the widespread nontrivial news featuring. Abrahamherews (talk) 05:03, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as there is simply no credible claim to notability. "Payed for the most self-published books while a teenager" is not a claim to fame, and does not guarantee a Wikipedia article. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Stating that "there is simply no credible claim to notability" is an unfounded and highly dubious claim in itself. Not even taking the world records into consideration, all publications released by the author alongside the new references added to the page prove notability by a landslide. 12:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.191.128.46 (talk)
 * Delete Self-published author with no evidence that he meets WP:GNG. Does not even remotely meet any of the four requirements specifically for notability of authors at WP:AUTHOR. First Light (talk) 07:47, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment : Suburban Life Media - Article 1,The Huffington Post - Article 2, The courier (College of Dupage's student newspaper est 1967) - Article 3, Daily Herald (Arlington Heights) - Article 4 etc.. makes it pass WP:GNG and thus proves notable. Abrahamherews (talk) 09:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 1). mysuburbanlife.com is a local paper, possibly not a RS and certainly doesn't fulfill 4(c) at WP:Author: "(c) has won significant critical attention," which would be the only potential application of that article 2). is a HuffPost blog, not a news article, nor sufficient to fulfill "significant critical attention." 3). is a student newspaper 4). is a local paper's announcement of 19 different local author book signing/appearances, of which this is the last in the list, one sentence long. None of this, alone or as a group, conveys "significant coverage" or "has won significant critical attention." First Light (talk) 09:48, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete All fluff, no substance. The prolix SPA posts here sure resemble the subject's unpoetical interviews. This oddity http://publishingperspectives.com/2015/02/teenagers-10-steps-to-become-successfully-self-published/ is worth a look, giving as it does a glimpse into the subject's talent for soaring imagery e.g.
 * "Most manuscripts that are submitted for review are tossed away into the black abyss of a cold file cabinet with no assurance that they will ever crawl to the surface again."


 * Not to mention:
 * "I feel have done [sic] what it takes to learn the many aspects of the self-publishing industry and the necessary information to fully understand how to exercise it's [sic] true abilities. Starting to write at the early age of five, I have never ceased to compose imaginative, unique, spirited, and contemporary poetic art, and will continue to do so until those who have been terribly misguided by common misconceptions of publishing comprehend what they need to do in order to achieve success."


 * Pure art! Also has a great photo of the subject posing with one of this books in what appears to be a school library. Meanwhile, at http://www.aaronozee.com/ we find,
 * "Readers that frequently show their support for Ozee Poetry understand the importance of poet Aaron Ozee's bestselling publication and how it has changed the face of literature for the better. In addition to the knowledge they hold regarding the poetic triumph that poet Aaron Ozee's bestselling publication continues to claim, it should be known that as of last week, a prominent online retailer known as Jet accepted, "Ironic Perfection: Poetic Works of Aaron Ozee," into its family of products."


 * And finally,
 * "Back in 2013, poet Aaron Ozee discovered two aspiring writers after browsing potential publishing connections on Linked In that went by the names Antony Hammond and Thomas Robertson from the city of Nottingham in the United Kingdom. Together, they held the desire to compose and self-publish a novel that would change the way the world viewed the economic status of the United States by recanting [sic] their own experiences on Wall Street."


 * That last sentence won Best malapropism at Sunday's Academy Awards, for those who weren't watching.  E Eng  11:17, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment : Some news outlets host interactive columns they call "blogs", and these may be acceptable as sources if the writers are professional journalists or professionals in the field on which they write This is what written in the Identifying reliable sources page. The huffpost blog article is written by a professional journalist as per the info within the article. So it can be considered as a reliable source. and can anyone point out where it is written local news papers cant be included as reliable source ? Abrahamherews (talk) 11:34, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * as you have not yet declared your conflict of interest (merely claimed to be "a fan"), and as you are actively participating in this discussion, please make it a priority to make that declaration. This is based on your claim to own the rights to the publicity photo of Ozee (now deleted as a copyright violation from Commons), and this edit summary. Again, as explained on your user talk page a few days ago, editing with a conflict of interest is not prohibited, but pretending that it does not exist can be seen as disruptive. Thank you. NB: This is not a request to disclose your identity. Nobody is ever required to do so publicly on Wikipedia.
 * Regarding "written by a professional journalist", the relevant info about the writer is here: freelance writer and marketing professional with a journalist background. --bonadea contributions talk 11:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph (talk)  13:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:AUTHOR and as per nom and EM Gregory. Sir Joseph (talk) 13:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Bonadea, I found his pic online and uploaded it to commons, later i found about the copyright issue, i am actively participating in the discussion cause i find many similar poets page live in wiki without even any reference and being a fan i like to see his wiki page live. Abrahamherews (talk) 15:08, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you point out any of the similar unreferenced poet pages you mention? First Light (talk) 15:18, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * comment : Alberto Bayo, Adisa Andwele , Osama Alomar , Hermann Bellinghausen , Nicolae Beldiceanu etc.. etc.. there are lot and lot of such pages without even a reference or passing any of the criteria for WP:AUTHOR Abrahamherews (talk) 18:16, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment : Can anyone comment on my previous comment ? why Alberto Bayo, Adisa Andwele , Osama Alomar , Hermann Bellinghausen , Nicolae Beldiceanu and lot and lot of such pages without even a reference or passing any of the criteria for WP:AUTHOR are live in wiki ? Abrahamherews (talk) 03:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It was wrong of First Light to send you down that path. It's irrelevant -- see WP:OTHERSTUFF.  E Eng  03:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Probably correct, but since I took the bait, I'll reply: some of those articles are likely AfD candidates. Most are non-English and are difficult to ascertain without foreign language help. I don't see any of them being comparable to this discussion. Aaron Ozee is a self-published author only, has received no significant coverage in mainstream news sources, or anything close to "significant critical attention." Also, see Other_stuff_exists. First Light (talk) 03:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete self-published author. Fails notability guideline. Extremely poor quality sources, with significant evidence that some/all are fundamentally artifacts of self-promotion. My own search for sources just turned up a huge pile of press releases. A Highschool newspaper (dupage88) has no reputation for reliability by our standards, no non-local weight, and was produced by schoolmates (i.e. not an independent source). The college newspaper (codcourier) is only marginally better. The Huffpo blog does not appear to pass WP:Newsblog and is written by a self-identified marketer. Lulu self-publishing site might be usable for certain facts, but has zero notability weight. The other refs are either negligible passing mention (dailyherald), are clearly promotional and involved (publishingperspectives), or very appear very questionable (mysuburbanlife). Alsee (talk) 19:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable teenaged self-published poet and self promoter. My good faith search yielded no evidence of notability. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  01:01, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * comment : Whats happening to the page ? Someone deleted many news sources even before the discussion is over and someone even deleted the entire article ? please reinstate the page as the discussion is not yet over Abrahamherews (talk) 03:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Articles are subject to normal editing even during deletion discussions. I removed unreliable sources (e.g. a high-school newspaper) and sources which didn't support the statements cited to them. As it happens, there's nothing left, which is what you'd expect in such a case.


 * Listen, I have two questions for you. (1) How is it you uploaded an image of Ozee's signature, marked as "Own work" ? Are you Ozee? If not, how is it "Own work"? (2) Is Ozee's poetry any more literate than his prose, which contains frequent grammar and spelling errors plus the occasional malapropism? Or is that part of his folksy appeal?  E Eng  03:38, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment : I got the signature from his book, which i photographed and edited and added to the wiki.But its not that ethical for removing all links even before the deletion is initiated. And i think you are no one to talk about him literature. This is a discussion whether to approve or not approve his page and not about the quality of writing and i strongly feel, you are no one to judge a poet who has released around 10 poetry works Abrahamherews (talk) 04:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Then it's not your own work and will have to be deleted. But you're right about the inappropriateness of passing judgment. After all, the dust jacket of Ozee's Ironic Perfection declares, "The world will at last know poetry at its finest." Who am I to disagree?


 * I have another question. Ozee's poem "Deeper" ends, "The sound of screams beneath the floor/ceased to continue nevermore". Now, is that some kind of homage to Poe? "The Tell-Tale Heart" meets "The Raven"?  E Eng  04:41, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I want to apologize for suggesting that the subject might be illiterate. I have no reason to doubt that his parents are married.  E Eng  14:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Clearly fails notability for authors - maybe it will someday, but hasn't happened yet. Not even the publishing houses see fit to publish his work at this time.  Scr ★ pIron IV 14:29, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete, blatant advertising. Guy (Help!) 14:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. The current sources do not satisfy Wikipedia's standards for notability, and a number of them are promotional anyway. For example, the PublishingPerspectives article appears to have been written by Ozee himself and half the citations simply link to his self-published works. My own search did not turn up anything. If his career takes off and he receives more coverage by reliable, independent sources, then the article could be recreated. ZettaComposer (talk) 14:51, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. The only actual sources about rather than by Ozee appear to be a blog post and his college's student newspaper. That's not good enough for WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. Wikipedia does have an issue where even highly accomplished poets have trouble meeting our bar for notability, but that's not a justification for including articles on lesser lights with a greater appetite for self-promotion. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:55, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete, for all the reasons given above. Page is ready to be "tossed away into the black abyss of a cold file cabinet with no assurance that they will ever crawl to the surface again." --Tryptofish (talk) 02:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: Disruptive editing seen within the discussion, even though its semi protected Abrahamherews (talk) 06:07, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


 * COMMENT Passes notability on grounds of WP:ANYBIO - The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor.Abrahamherews (talk) 06:21, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No. For the umpteenth time, to be added to recordsetter.com's database is not a "significant award" (and certainly not well-known). There have also been recent false claims in the article that Ozee has a record number of publications, when 1) this is provably untrue for more than one reason (those are self-published and there are other teenagers with more books published, they just never sent it off to recordsetter's community) and 2) the only thing that is in fact shown is that he and his marketing people claim this. --bonadea contributions talk 07:18, 3 March 2017 (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.