Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Hartsock


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Christian Hartsock

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Obvious vanity page: one main contributor claims he is the subject of the article, and creator appears to be someone closely associated with him. The subject in question is plainly not notable: he's apparently been film crew or set dresser on a few films that are barely or questionably notable in their own right, he's created a few utterly non-notable film works, he's self-published a book through iUniverse, he's been interviewed a few times on non-notable radio shows, and he's written a couple of columns for mostly non-notable blogs. The article makes no claim of notability, and if it did, that claim could not be substantiated. Roscelese (talk) 09:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  —Roscelese (talk) 09:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Someone claiming to be the subject has been deleting large swaths of sourced material. He apparently doesn't want a complete article. As far as I can tell, his leading achievement is producing an independent video. However I can't find any significant coverage of him in reliable news sources.   Will Beback    talk    09:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non notable guy that wrote a few small independent things such as small articles and videos. The Arbiter  ★★★  17:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No reliable sources? I am correcting the info. He was featured on CNN in a 1 hour documentary---notable enough for my standards. Looking for sources where he worked with James O'Keefe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Janewellsmier (talk • contribs) 17:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I looked at the CNN clip. It's only about one minute long, all him talking, and he basically makes one point: that controversy sells. The fact that he was included in the documentary is somewhat significant, but the piece itself doesn't seem usable as a source for the article.   Will Beback    talk    22:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * A pity too that the author has taken WP:OWNership of the article. In looking at online avaiable souces, (and ingonoring the articles written by the subject in various publications), it seems that a decent little article meeting WP:GNG might almost be possible, but as this journalist has not taken time to understand WP:COI, and wishes the article to only state certain things, and only in the manner he wishes, I can predict nothing but continued problems.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Plus, hanging on James O'Keefe's coat-tails doesn't bestow notability for a separate article: see Hannah Giles who had a much larger hand in the ACORN videos than just "shooting B-roll", and she merely redirects to the larger ACORN Controversy article. (And no Mr. Hartsock to be found there.) &mdash; DennisDallas (talk) 17:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. After watching the Rich Zubaty WP:COI & WP:OWN battle of mind-numbing BS over a self-important vanity-press author drag on (on & off, of course, but throughout 2010 during multiple blocks & deletes &mdash; and three years before that), now having to waste editors' & admins' time over another vanity-piece &mdash;he's mostly a blogger&mdash; isn't worth the drain on volunteer resources. And although he's a twice-published author (one merely co-written), I don't think either tome is notable on its own, but his co-author might be (although her article reeks of WP:AUTOBIO).
 * A new editor to the article (but probably his co-author) just yesterday added a Fox News appearance from November (along with a half-dozen other edits &mdash;  curiously after no activity since Feb. 2009) and also commented here (see unsigned comment above). But I've had no off-wiki response from the subject nor his main "employer" (since that's the web bio the AnonIP cribbed from) to try to verify the claimed "identity" of the AnonIP. It's been a week already.


 * All I'm seeing is Socks/Meat and COI. &mdash; DennisDallas (talk) 16:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's a link to a YouTube copy of the Fox show discussing Hartsock's blog. I don't know which day it was on, but the citation is incorrect. Here's the Hulu version of the show on the episode in the citation. It has a different group of commentatators and the host is wearing different clothes. Aside from commenting on some of his points the personal remarks about him seem to be mostly negative.
 * As for socks and COI, there seems to be a close connection between this article and Krystle Nicole Russin. (That article looked like this before I trimmed it.). Folks need to remember that Wikipedia does not exist for promotion.   Will Beback    talk    09:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep I just stumbled on this page by following a group of attackers attacking others, etc., so I have no knowledge other than what is on the current article page. It’s probably too late to help this poor shlub who is being hounded by an editing cabal that seeks to determine what constitutes a meaningful article using all types of forensics that is irrelevant to wikipedia rules. What he did in the past, how obnoxious he is in editing, or how naïve he is about Wikipedia etiquette has nothing to do with proposing this article for deletion. Obviously, the best approach is to constructively fix the article, but if his edit warring and ownership makes that too difficult, have him blocked, but don’t delete the article to punish him. It seems to me the editing cabal is resorting to Afd because otherwise editing here is a waste of time – if so, for those who it is a waste of time, there is plenty of other articles that could use your attention. I checked three or four of the references that were sound; that material can be kept, and the rest can be tagged for citations needed if it is not contentious, and if it is, it should be deleted. The troublesome shlub should be told in a nice way that information in biographies must be cited in proper secondary, independent references for everyone’s protection. The best proof that the editing cabal is being deletists when it shouldn't - there are only three or four folks here voting one way or the other!Edstat (talk) 17:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ed: FWIW, I peeked at your (blanked just today) Talkpage and other AfD's you've been a party to, and can only gather that your use here of un-civil terms such as "group of attackers" and "editing cabal" and "deletists" (and your Talkpage remark of "why waste time with all the charades") doesn't show an assumption of good faith on your part, but rather "having a chip on your shoulder" from your prior AfD experiences. As the nominating (and previously un-involved) editor clearly noted, the notability threshold is in question, and persons other than the subject with COI issues may be adding the mix. (And, so you won't retort as on other AfD's, this isn't a critique of your vote &mdash; just its content.)&mdash; DennisDallas (talk) 18:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This is exactly what I mean. There are several verifiable secondary independent sources in this article, and editing cabals ignore that and instead rely on their forensics. For example, someone found a Fox news reference and it was denigrated because of when it was found and by guessing who might have added the reference - which completely overlooks the fact that it is a verifiable reference. And your "peek" is just more of the same forensics that have nothing to do with the topic at hand. Good luck to this poor shlub - he'll need it against this cabal!Edstat (talk) 02:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Edstat, with all due courtesy, I think you're confusing notability with verifiability. (Both are important, of course, but lack of verifiability is not the reason I nominated this article.) If we were to make the statement that "Hartsock has written an article about the Tea Party," the Fox source would be sufficient to verify that. However, the fact that he was discussed this one time on a program that airs almost every day does not mean that he is notable enough to be the subject of an article. Roscelese (talk) 03:38, 6 December 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.