Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Spark (2nd 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 no consensus. The issues of the article being promotional have been resolved and this alone is no grounds for deletion if it can be salvaged. As it has been, and people believe they can write an article from the sources given, I can find no consensus to delete. - filelake shoe  &#xF0F6;   09:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Black Spark
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Several readers are complaining in feedback that this article reads like an advertisement, and it has notability issues that possibly make it fall short of having multiple reliable sources outside the artist's fandom. Notably, this made a stir in blogs but seems to have since closed down without having a larger impact outside the blogosphere. Shii (tock) 13:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * STRONG Delete The anonymous person who is the subject of the article is already a self-admitted sock-puppetteer, Not notable in any event, and there is -0- reliable seconday sourcing. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. If "the subject of the article is already a self-admitted sock-puppetteer", I do not see anything indicating that this article was written by a banned or blocked editor, even if about one so purported. And no matter its topic, the point here here is that even if the topic is disliked by some for various reasons, it appears to have received enough coverage to be worthy of note. Sources listed in article are not so much blogs, as they are reports in genre sources about reactions to this performing artist and his works and identity. WP:GNG is met.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm seeing only one reliable source that is independent of the subject. Can you list them just to make this more clear? Shii (tock) 05:11, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Which one? As the article itself contains several others, we have someone who just ekes over the line. Just.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Theo polisme  22:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 *  Delete Neutral - Seems overly promotional and not notable outside of a few blogs . Even then, the subject seems more like a meme than something that should be covered in an encyclopedia. - MrX 23:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * A perception or opinion of advert in the content of any article on a notable topic is best addressed through regular editing. And rather than a "meme" spreading from person to person, we have the stage name of a singular anonymous individual who is covered in multiple non-blog sources. Wikipedia allows articles on such if properly souracble (IE: Alan Smithee,George Eliot, Émile Ajar, David Agnew, Walter Plinge, et al. ). What we do for such is articles is explain that it IS a pseudonym and expand to cover the works presented under such name and expand the reasons behind use of the name... much as was done here. And a topic also being also covered in blogs does not denigrate the topic's real-world coverage in reliable sources.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that the promotional tone is not, in itself, a reason for deleting, but it is a reason to investigate further. As far as I can tell, the only reliable source cite is Out Magazine. I guess my main point is how can this article can made encyclopedic, when the available sources treat the subject in such a trite manner? The Facebook sources are completely unacceptable, in my opinion. Show me one additional, non-trivial mention in a publication such as The Advocate or Genre and I will happily change my !vote. - MrX 00:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Just one? How about the lengthy authored article in Xtra!   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:58, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That review is not a very strong source, but sufficient for me to alter my !vote to neutral. - MrX 01:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * KEEP and CLEANUP It may or may not pass WP:XXXBiographies, but it is very obvious that it passes WP:GNG, at the very least. Bonkers The Clown  (Nonsensical Babble) 13:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - This is just promotional. There is no reliable secondary sourcing at all. Perhaps when this person's identity is revealed there may be something there, until then, it's just a meme. --Sue Rangell ✍✉ 21:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well... to be fair, all articles on Wikipedia which speak in detail about their topics could be called "promotional" in some way by some body. The difference between Advert and Article herein, no matter the topic being covered, is our own editorial constraint and our keeping an article neutral and encyclopedic. As the name "Black Spark" is used by one person and/or his film company, and not spreading haphazardly from person to person, we do not (yet) have a true meme, but instead rather a demonstrable example of stage name or pseudonym. We can write about such if they have coverage. We need not ever know just who uses the pseudonym, as long as we can report on how and where and why it is used. I offered examples above. For decades, no director admitted to being one of those using the anonymity of Allan Smithee. And here and now, just as then, it was being an "unknown" that gave the name attention.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:58, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Given the interviews I think this reaches past GNG. Insomesia (talk) 22:28, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Interview with Boy Culture
 * archived news story from Next Magazine, both of these have material not presently in the article. Insomesia (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Are those sources really independent of the subject? Shii (tock) 01:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no reason to believe they aren't reliably independent. Exceptional claims require exceptional sourcing, I don't see using these as doing anything exceptional just run of the mill softball interviewing. Insomesia (talk) 12:21, 15 December 2012 (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.