Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Kontras (3rd nomination)


 * 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. An explanation of my rationale for this closure is on the talk page. Stifle (talk) 13:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Adam Kontras
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Previous AfDs closed as no consensus. I was the admin who closed the recent second nomination. I would have left it at that for a while, but Adam has recently contacted me asking that it be relisted for discussion in the hopes that a firm consensus may be found. This is a procedural nomination; I have no opinion regarding the retention or deletion of the page at this time. Shimeru (talk) 19:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:BIO. From the last discussion:
 * According to WP:REDFLAG, exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources., , and are all tertiary sources of dubious reliability. The book is self-published; it particularly admits that its content "should not be used a substitute for independent verification". The latter source seems to contain some factual inaccuracies: its claim that the term "vlog" was "coined around 2004" conflicts with the Merriam-Webster's Dictionary, which indicates that the term was actually coined in 2002. A couple of sentences is not significant coverage, particularly in a book. According to WP:RS, tertiary sources should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion. These sources are certainly not good enough for WP:REDFLAG. It's also entirely possible that they used this very same article as their primary source of information.


 * is a blog with a single mention of the subject. The blog refers to the so-called "interview" that doesn't interview the subject at all. It fails WP:VUE and only shows about 20 seconds of video footage that seems to have been taken from the subject's video blog.  is a performance announcement in a local student newspaper that has some coverage on the subject but not on the discussed claim. The references in the Early Show, YouTube and Atom.com only link to the subject's video submissions.  (translation) and (translation) only have very superficial coverage of the above YouTube video.  doesn't cover the subject directly. Being the first first video blogger ever would probably make the subject notable, but so far the claim hasn't been supported by reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. — Rankiri (talk) 21:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * comment' FWIW, see the relevant section in Barbara Ann . whether this is enough for notability is something about which I have no idea.  DGG ( talk ) 23:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Relevant references from Barbara Ann:, , . Two of them link to YouTube-like video sharing websites and 4tvs.com is the subject's website. — Rankiri (talk) 00:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. As I just noted on Shimeru's talk page, I don't believe that it was actually Adam Kontras who requested another AfD be opened. Rather, I believe it was Charles Groves (the vandal from the previous AfD) operating User:Adam kontras as a sockpuppet account, which also happens to be impersonating a living person. &mdash;Gordon P. Hemsley&rarr; &#x2709; 02:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, please mention when you have a clear confict of interest. Not only were you the author and one of the main contributors to the article, Google shows that you have a close relationship with the subject as well: . From the subject's blog: So Gordon P. Hemsley, singer extraordinaire, started cleaining up my code. . . . His reason for doing this? 'Cause he can. He has never asked for a dime, and all I can tell him is that when I can - he's my first hire.(cache) From Gordon P. Hemsley's (GPHemsley's) YouTube channel: Those in this group are curious as to the events happening to one Adam Kontras. Their support only implies they read it, not that they wish him well. In fact, most people are curious as to just how Adam will continually fail on a larger and larger scale... but they keep reading and watching the videos at 4tvs.com.(cache) — Rankiri (talk) 13:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Accuse me of whatever you want. You're still missing the point. I've pretty much taken myself out of the debate over whether Adam Kontras is notable according to Wikipedia's guidelines. There is a bigger issue here, in that Adam is being harassed and now impersonated by the same person who wound up instigating AfD #2 because of his repeated vandalism: Charles Groves. As such, AfD #3 was filed on a completely inaccurate basis (though I agree with Outback the koala below that it was in good faith). &mdash;Gordon P. Hemsley&rarr; &#x2709;


 * Delete self-promotion straining every possible resource to demonstrate notability. If good quality sources aren't readily apparent, then it clearly fails.  Self-published books and sound-byte length mentions do not indicate notability.  Merriam-Webster pretty much puts to rest the idea that this guy was the first at anything.  Rklawton (talk) 02:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Sourced, notable to me. (per Shimeru this relist was unnecessary, but I think it was in good faith) I believe he passes WP:BIO under the criteria for Creative professionals. Outback the koala (talk) 07:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: Shimeru, I am in the process of contacting the FBI in a cyber-stalking case with Charles Groves. He is the one who contacted you, not me.  I'm more than exhausted however that no one here takes even a moment to do a tiny bit of research on the matter.  You can see from the previous deletion that "Adam4tvs" was blocked and I was given a new username:  Adam Kontras.  Charles took the name Adam kontras with a lower case to impersonate me and continue to harass me.  Please close this and let it come up on it's own merits.  If there was no consensus last week, there will be no consensus this week.  More time has to pass.Adam Kontras (talk) 19:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I feel that the article is good enough to be kept. And adding in the other considerations and problems that have been raised in this discussion, I feel even more strongly that this article should be left alone for now so it can be improved. Silver  seren C 19:40, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment There's also some pretty good sources on a Google News search. Silver  seren C 19:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please recall WP:LOTSOFSOURCES and take a look at the last AfD. Did you find any solid WP:RS sources that can prove the claim? Or do you disagree with the analysis of the available sources? — Rankiri (talk) 21:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Adequate sourcing, in my opinion. Passes WP:BIO. Agree with Silver  seren C - let's put this issue to rest and let the article undergo normal Wiki development. Evalpor (talk) 22:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete This is an interesting debate, and one that we could rehash for years it seems. There will always be more evidence to be found one way or another. I have spent the last several hours searching for any information on the 'first video blogger' status. There is remarkably little information to be found supporting the subjects claim as first, outside of the subjects own sites, this Wikipedia entry, and people that quote these things as their sources of the subjects claim. This entire issue may not be a noteable one. There does exist much debate on who the first non-video blogger was however, but this too is an impossible thing to prove, hence the reason for the extended debate on that topic. There is no consensus on who the first 'regular blogger' is. Looks to be that the subject of the article has claimed the title 'worlds first video blogger' himself. The reason for lack of notability is that it seems video blogging when established was not a noteable issue, or someone of note would have noticed and written about it.
 * Next issue, while the CBS claim and references are valid, this does not seem to meet Wikipedia guidelines for notablility as was discussed in the second AFD debate. One show, one movie, one mention does not cut it. Cannot count each appearance, or mention as verification of noteability. One cannot simply believe themselves notable, others must feel that they are. Further, the article states things like 'with his characters appearing as the Egos on the sets of such shows as The Price is Right[12] and The Young and the Restless[13]' this seems a clear attempt to lend credibility to the article, and the subject himself, where it does not belong. The subject did not host these programs or appear in the cast of said programs, was not in the credits, therefore this is irrelevant to the subject, and the article; as well as being related to the single possibly noteable event, being that of the CBS appearances. And as discussed, that one single program segmant cannot stand on its own as establishment of notability.
 * I agree totally with Rklawton this is pure self promotion. Someone trying to be famous for trying to be famous. Netitude (talk) 20:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC) — Netitude (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep The most recent reason for this nomination is deplorable. The entry has not changed for the better or worse since closure of the last debate. Sources are verifiable, and entry is notable as per resources and references available and noted. Since page was permitted to stand on it's own merits at the last closure of debate, leave the page as is; as it was at the closure of the last AfD.7ObFuScAtoR7 (talk) 01:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)7ObFuScAtoR7 — 7ObFuScAtoR7 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep I disagree that this page is pure self-promotion. Sufficient sources have been listed. In addition, the last nomination for deletion closed just a few days ago with no consensus (default keep), and the only reason this is being brought up again is because someone brought it to Shimeru's attention out of a personal vendetta against Adam. The page has not changed since the last debate, so why rehash it again? Shouldn't a Wikipedia editor use some common sense and do a little research before putting up a deletion nomination? This sets a bad precedent for Wikipedia, because it allows anyone to play havoc with the encyclopedia. Impersonating another Wikipedia user and tricking an editor to nominate a page for deletion is the equivalent of mindlessly defacing a page.--Bradcwriter (talk) 00:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC) — Bradcwriter (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Verifiability of the sources has nothing to do with their quality, and significant coverage is more than a trivial mention. Aside from the unsupportable claim of being the first Internet video blogger in the history of the world, the subject hasn't received any nontrivial coverage in reliable secondary sources. — Rankiri (talk) 03:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Limeisneom (talk) 08:51, 1 May 2010 (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.