Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criss Jami (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Criss Jami
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Previously deleted article (after AfD) partially recreated, but supplemented with a bunch of third-rate sources. It is my belief that this self-published "philosopher" still fails WP:BIO. Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  03:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:45, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:45, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete The WorldNetDaily (WND) source is excellent. The rest are trivial mentions. One source isn't enough for WP:GNG. It could pass on WP:AUTHOR #3 if there were multiple book reviews in reliable sources, but not seeing it. He's active posting poems on poetry.com and has garnered fans there thus many are quoting his poems in various sources online. Don't think that's sufficient for notability, need more sources like WND or book reviews in reliable sources. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ???? WorldNetDaily is not considered a reliable source for much of anything. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  05:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see "WorldNetDaily" in that link. At this point it's not worth hashing out [here or at RS review] since it won't make a difference to this AfD. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * explanation there are presently no less than five footnotes sourced to WND.com, formerly known as WorldNetDaily but every bit as non-reliable under the new mask. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  17:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * "that link" meaning the link you made ("reliable source for much of anything") to justify why WND is unreliable. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry, I was just linking to our definition of a reliable source. As to why WND is not considered one, you'd have to read the article about WND and the myriad times the topic has been discussed on our reliable sources noticeboard and elsewhere. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  18:40, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Understood. I created the article without closer considering all the guidelines. Some topics seem hard to classify: I understand that they're not sources, but I noticed the subject is mentioned or quoted about every few minutes to an hour on both Facebook and Twitter (Facebook, Twitter). I'm just saying where I'm coming from. Ahnold T (talk) 09:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * comment - being mentioned or quoted in Twitter or Facebook by people you know does not constitute notability as it is understood here. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  14:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Per WP:GNG (or see WP:42 for a summary), the topic needs to be mentioned in reliable sources. Since Facebook and Twitter are self-published (everyone can post) they are not considered reliable. Also it has to be "in depth" coverage. It shows however there is a fan base, which might mean book sales, which might mean book reviews, and that would work to show notability - but right now looks like WP:TOOSOON. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not sure about the subject but they aren't people I know, Mike. I did a search for "Public Posts" on those sites which would be random people anywhere in the world, but yes I gotcha. WP:TOOSOON seems about right. Ahnold T (talk) 18:07, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I see an article on him has gone through this before. It's easy for non-experienced users to get confused on this one. One of the "unreliable" sources said he's the number one quoted author (above the legends), however he's self-published: http://www.gotknowhow.com/quotes/authors/popular/. WP:TOOSOON. Ahnold T (talk) 18:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. On that note, I've made up my mind. Perfect sources or not, my human side says this article is very relevant. Ahnold T (talk) 20:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

It's ironic that the actual given, constant mass of people is considered a non-reliable source, whereas a biography can be written by a single individual and thrown on the bookshelf. Maybe that explains why the site is so vastly inconsistent in its inclusions. Ahnold T (talk) 11:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Disregarding the reintroduction of previously discussed self-published and non-reliable sources, there has been no new WP:RS provided since the topic was deleted before TEDickey (talk) 00:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No it's not ironic. Such a book is a secondary source, whereas Wikipedia is a tertiary source. Such a book may be useful as a reference for Wikipedia purposes, but its existence alone does not indicate that the subject meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines.--ukexpat (talk) 13:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That doesn't explain my point. In the end, buzzwords don't mean much when it comes to the reality of it. Maybe there's nothing we can do about it, but I'm just saying. Ahnold T (talk) 15:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, one of the reasons we require more than just evidence of people liking an artist, we need material to write an article with. Need biographical information about the person. The WND piece is excellent in that regard. While WND is considered a poor source on some topics (politics), it's perfectly reliable for reporting basic facts about the life of an artist. However, we also need multiple sources, and since WND is already considered controversial as a source, and since we don't have 3 or 4 other biographical sources, it's very difficult to make a case for keep. See WP:GNG which is summarized at WP:42. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 13:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, this article doesn't have information not verifiable by the given source(s). Like I said about buzzwords, I proved everything it said including notability, maybe through original research, but I certainly did. I could see if the article was written like an advertisement, but it's not. I was agreeing with WP:TOOSOON until I realized that part of the subject's relevance is surpassing U.S. presidents and historical geniuses without the support of places like Wikipedia. WP:TOOINCREDIBLE. Ahnold T (talk) 15:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

According to the Amazon store, he has also been in 19 books. It looks like 12 of them are independent of the subject. Amazon Books Ahnold T (talk) 16:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:TOOINCREDIBLE Ahnold T (talk) 15:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah whatever guys, I give up! hehe Ahnold T (talk) 16:32, 5 September 2013 (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.