Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brenton Lengel (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 delete. Notability not established during the course of this or the last discussion, via evidence of significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. &mdash; Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 12:02, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Brenton Lengel
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

An IP tried to nominate it for deletion with a reasonable rationale of submitted for deletion. this reads like a diary; sources are either tangential, non-independent, or don't mention subject at all. Was no consensus a year and half ago with a lot of meat/sockpuppetry. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Was alerted to this afd by a Facebook post, surprisingly. I don't find any evidence of notability and the subject, whose accomplishments may surely be lauded on a local level, don't exceed even mine or my 76 year old father's (whose short stories now get published annually in his local Senior Citizen's journal), and neither of us merit Wikipedia articles, which are a world of trouble to the subject even at the best of times. Bastique ☎ call me! 16:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that bastique (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. "Was alerted to this afd by a Facebook post" user admits to being canvassed on FB. Joseph dejacque (talk) 20:58, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete not notable. Language game (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC) — Language game (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete per bastique. — Nearly Headless Nick   {c}  16:29, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You don't even know my father. 😀  Bastique ☎ call me! 16:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. The article has referenciness, but the references are, in the end, one or more of trivial, unreliable or not independent. The involvement of multiple SPAs including a permablocked sockpuppet gives some clue as to the article's problems. Also, I don't know Cary's dad either. Guy (Help!) 16:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note. The article, North to Maine has the same issues. Bastique ☎ call me! 16:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep, per reasons pretty well outlined in the first AfD proposal. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 17:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep page is well-sourced, original delete nomination was a verified troll nomination. Subject covered in depth by The Fifth Column, published in multiple "best of" anthologies and reported on by Outside Magazine. Joseph dejacque (talk) 18:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC) — Joseph dejacque (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Note I think this is my fault. Yesterday I voted "Keep" on Caleab Maupin's page because a friend told me it had been targeted by rightwing trolls. Clearly those same trolls followed me here and nominated this page as retaliation because some of my most recent edits were here. Note one of them accidentally pasted the previous page's deletion discussion onto subject's page and since the nomination the page has been targeted by multiple vandal accounts posting extremely petty edits: Joseph dejacque (talk) 18:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Note, comeon people, this is just immature: Joseph dejacque (talk) 18:31, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Note, Account that has voted 'delete' just vandalized subject's page, so blatantly a bot undid it and the vandalism implies Language game knows the subject personally, (at least online). Joseph dejacque (talk) 23:45, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep per reasons outlined above, and during the first time this was up for deletion. It should be noted that the page is also currently under vandalism attack, and while ostensibly this is irrelevant to the question of whether the page meets notability guidelines, it calls into question the motivation behind its nomination now (again, see comments above.)  Regardless, the page is well sourced and well-written, and in my opinion the subject (as a published author, play-write, and activist) is notable enough to meet the requirements. Dexeron (talk) 18:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC) — Dexeron — Dexeron (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete A wolf-in-sheeps-clothing as it were, with regards to the sourcing. It gives all the appearance of a notable topic, but there's no there there.  A careful analysis of sources indicates that almost NONE of these are reliable.  There's just not anything resembling a sufficiently reliable source or where one may exist, sufficiently in-depth coverage in that source.  I'm afraid I just don't see enough here to hang an article on.  There's been a LOT of work that has gone into digging these up, I'm sure, but it's just not enough IMHO.  -- Jayron 32 18:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep No new issues that weren't resolved in the last AfD proposal. Plankhead (talk) 19:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC) — Plankhead (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * "Keep" No substantial and legitimate issues with the page. The d*letes are being organized against the page's author/subject as a personal attack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoLifeKing17 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)  — NoLifeKing17 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * No evidence of this. Also, does not dispute the actual lack of notability. Bastique ☎ call me! 19:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Evidence: "the subject, whose accomplishments may surely be lauded on a local level, don't exceed even mine or my 76 year old father" How is that in any way not an admission of a personal vendetta? It's completely unprofessional. Subject is a published, produced NYC playwright.Joseph dejacque (talk) 21:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - not notable EricthePinko (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete obvious vanity page Killing Vector (talk) 20:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - subject hasn't stopped being notable since the last AfD discussion, and the number of independent sources cited has increased. If someone has concerns other than notability, they should improve the article themselves or propose improvements on its talk page. Zwilson (talk) 23:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC) — Zwilson (talk&#32;• contribs) — Zwilson (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Hmm, so the canvassing/sockpuppetry begins. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * weak delete the sourcing used doesnt grab me and say this is a notable subject, though they do have me looking optimistically for more. The two google news hits; Snow White Zombie Apocalypse was right on the cusp with its publishing by Scout comics being even more optimistic yet its nowhere enough alone and 12 months on from the announcement theres been nothing else.  The only other google news source is in its own words "...celebrating Off-Off-Broadway." and is behind a paywall if I could have read that source it may have tipped me the other way but alas given the other issues highlighted in this discussion and the sources self description I couldnt AGF {WP:GNG]] without details. Overall its probably a case of too soon and not now maybe in the future. My comment on the other issues not associated with the article, yes I saw this mentioned on another web site but I made my own assessment closing admin can give this comment what ever weight they feel. Looking through the discussion so far I think its going to be no-consensus and really should follow the recent US east coast lead and close due to Snow. That said it should also be revisited reasonably soon when it can assessed against the communities standards without the background noise. Gnangarra 05:12, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * IMO it shouldn't close no consensus because a lot of canvassed people came in to vote Keep. The background noise was there year and half ago, and it looks like waiting a year hasn't reduced it (with one person saying something similar about renominating it soon) Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm curious about this other website. Another sysop was alerted on other site too apparently - Was alerted to this afd by a Facebook post, surprisingly. It has produced both keep and delete !votes - and a lot of 'em quickly. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:20, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Here is what I see; some of the plays that have won awards or been shortlisted for those awards, several of them are obtained due to open socilitation. The 2010 Eugene O'Neill National Playwrights Conference honor, that takes plays by open submission, along with the Humana Festival of New American Plays, Estrogenius (2012 rules in place though a search through the website shows submissions are required) and the James Rodgers Contest at the University of Kentucky. From what I could tell about the 2014 best monologue, the publisher does ask for submissions but the criteria seems vague. To me, for a lot of the plays that won awards seemed to be for happenstance. If you do not submit, you will not be considered and some of these events will attract (the James Rodgers Contest at the University of Kentucky is already over, after reading the CV of HERMAN DANIEL FARRELL III Associate Professor of Theatre University of Kentucky], who was a judge of the contest. I feel like a lot of the attention with playwriting was self driven and, outside those very small festivals, does not have the national outreach. Tha arrests by NYPD during Ouccpy do not stand out, unless it was a specific arrest he was in that either created or challenged current statutes (e.g. the mask rule in public). Yet, what I feel is that his activism during the Ouccpy movement, including spending time with those who have been jailed for online activism, does show some, but not much, merit. I see it a lot as a self promoted piece where notability is tied to self-submission contests for playwriting or things caught on youtube by random people or connections with those who are notable in their own right. So, what I would recommend would be delete. If there was a small list or articles about minor players in the Ouccpy movement, a merge would be fine but I just do not have anything to suggest to move anything to. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete I concur with User:Zscout370. I was, I confess, puzzled at first by the oversourcing; it gives a first impression that there must be notability somewhere - all those sources.  but when you begin to look at them one by one, they collapse.  non-notable "awards."  websites. blogposts.  micro-minor venues. I just can't find the notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have already nominated delete. I've had another look at the article and I'm even more convinced this is a clear vanity page using non-notable sources.EricthePinko (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * note I have already voted 'keep' How in the world are Backpacker Magazine Outside Magazine and Appalachian Trail Conservancy not notable sources? Also AFD criteria does not specify that sources must be "notable" just that they be "Reliable" ie: "published materials with a reliable publication process" which many if not all of these sources have. Joseph dejacque (talk) 22:00, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * My search on: Brenton Lengel site:outsideonline.com, came up empty. As did my search of  Brenton Lengel site:Backpacker.com .  You would help you case it you would post  a link to each of these here, so that editors can evaluate them. E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note I ran a search for "Brenton Lengel"  on proquest news archive.  there were 2 hits, one was a press release  (which counts for nothing).  the other was to this : CASTS AND BLASTS, Schneck, Marcus. The Patriot - News; Harrisburg, Pa. [Harrisburg, Pa]02 June 2013: T.26. Unfortunately only the title, no link to article itself.  It is virtually inconceivable that a notable contemporary author or playwright or activist would fail to get valid, full text hits on a proquest search.  Nothing on HighBeam either.   Where are the WP:RS? E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I suppose you could contact the publications themselves. Issue and page is listed in the sources as: "Way Off Broadway" Outside Magazine. July 2013. pg 38" Source guidelines specify that print source archives don't have to be listed online:
 * "It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet."
 * As for RS, sources don't have to appear in particular searches, but just by clicking "News" above we get two and "Books" we get even more.
 * When I googled the plays mentioned I got like, five separate in-depth reviews  . I don't think there's any question if this guy is a playwright or not, or if his work was produced in NYC. Theatres that produced him like The Flea Theater are notable on their own. Plus there's this, which I think you could hang an article on just by itself . Joseph dejacque (talk) 23:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note that your link to an alumni magazine, while it can be cited on fact, does not support notability. Alumni magazines never do. Article STILL LACKS secondary SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I frequently attend performances at The Flea Theater, a small house where I sometimes do see interesting work by promising but non- or not-yet-notable playwrights.  Advocates of keeping this article do not help their case by oversourcing.  Moreover, where sourcing is so paltry, it is, in fact, important to have some means of verifying that the sources cited to relatively significant publications such as Outside (magazine) and Backpacker (magazine) are WP:INDEPTH and meet WP:SIGCOV. I want to WP:AGF, but with an overstuffed article that has been subject ot CANVASSING, I feel a need to operate in Trust-But-Verify mode.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Point The only verifiable canvassing has been canvassing of "Delete" votes (check out the first three who all seem to know each other), NOT keep votes. If the article is oversourced maybe we should clean it up, but I don't see oversourcing as a problem in and of itself. It just means people put in alot of effort.
 * Also question is there any criteria for publication significance? As far as I'm aware Secondary sources don't need to be "significant" they just need to be reliable. I think 'Trust-but-verify" is fine. I'd just be very surprised to see this much smoke and no fire. Joseph dejacque (talk) 00:09, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Joseph dejacque, I do wish you'd point to the "smoke" you are seeing. Spamming this discussion with reviews by non-notable bloggers posting on non-notable group blogs such as http://www.theasy.com and www.womanaroundtown.com is not the same as establishing notability.  In addition to these, your list of 9 footnotes includes a newsarama "article" that is a mere announcement by a publisher of a list of comic books, including one by Lengel - not a source for notability.  It includes  an alumni mag article - not a source that can support notability.  The SOLE book that you link to is a book is an inclusion of an essay by Lengel in a collected "Best of" by a very minor publisher, not much in the way of support for notability.  The only semi-solid, verifiable source is your footnote #5 this NYThearter.com article, and it's not sufficient.  To keep this or any article, we need multiple, reliable, verifiable secondary sources of WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:28, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - I'm struggling to find even a handful of sources that would ever be accepted for a company article, an area where I have more experience. The few actual articles about him that are here are niche publications - there's very little mainstream coverage to support notability.  I googled him with the NY Times and Daily News and nothing comes up about his work.  Fails WP:GNG. With the number of votes and past deletion history, hopefully the closing admin will not just do a vote count and drop a no consensus but instead will also look at the policies used to defend or dismiss the article. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  01:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Question I'm not spamming anything. I'm simply asking where it says that for a source to be reliable it must be something like the NYTimes? While a publication like that certainly would be reliable There's no guidelines about how ONLY those publications are reliable. Criteria for reliable is:
 * "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. **Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language**. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability."
 * Similarly, criteria for notability is:
 * "For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice"[1] or "note"[2] – that is, "remarkable"[2] or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"[1] within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being "famous" or "popular" – although not irrelevant – is secondary." The Theatre is Easy source, for instance, employs an editorial staff of at least three . "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." It easily hits all three of those, as do several others.
 * Subject has hiked the entire Appalachian Trail, written the first play about it and participated with distinction in OWS among other things. Subject may not be famous enough to have a NYT article, but as you see above fame and notability are not the same thing Joseph dejacque (talk) 03:43, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Besides the Wikipedia policy requiring reliable coverage in independent sources, there's also a bit of instinct and experience in play here. I used the Times and Daily News as examples of what would be considered good sources, where you'd expect a truly notable local to appear, but those aren't only ones we could use. (Daily News has a lower notability bar of what they cover, so perhaps that's a better example for this AfD discussion.)  As an avid consumer of media, and having written several articles myself, I have a good sense of what publications are suitable for sourcing.  It's not always the case, but good sources usually have their own articles.  Despite the sheer volume of references here, as mentioned before, a closer look shows they aren't very strong.  The last point you make deserves some discussion - being the first to hike the Appalachian Trail and to write a play about it.  Let's look at those items.  According to this, 18,366 people have walked the whole trail []. At the American Theater of Actors, where the play was produced (and incidentally doesn't have a Wikipedia article), this says there have been 800 plays produced there. [] And that's just one Off-Broadway theater.  So where I'm going with this is that there can be a variety of firsts when you mix categories together, but that in itself doesn't make them notable. The deciding factor for me is the coverage the accomplishment gets.  It's just not here for this. TimTempleton</b> <sup style="color:#800080">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  04:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear, this was not an Off-Broadway production, it was some sort of indie production.  Many events and artistic productions are significant to the participants.  But at Wikipedia we require WP:SIGCOV in reliable, independent, secondary sources to validate notability.  I concur with User:timtempleton's comments.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:33, 17 January 2018 (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.