Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dennis Adonis


 * 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. &mdash;Cryptic 05:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Dennis Adonis

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This page seems to quite clearly have been started as a vanity page. Although it appears to be well referenced, establishing notability, many of the claims and references are bunk. For example, it states that he is most notable internationally for the book "Ten Letters to Obama", but this book gets 38 real Google hits, most of which are just links to buy the book. The Wikipedia article also states that he is frequently cited in newspapers, however, following those links shows that he is merely the originator of a single quote, "Voting is not a right. It is a method used to determine which politician was most able to brainwash you", that has received infrequent coverage in minor publications. Clearly fails WP:AUTHOR/WP:JOURNALIST. May some day be notable, but now is WP:TOOSOON. Bueller 007 (talk) 16:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk  16:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not seeing any reliable sources / awards / other stuff needed for notability. It is true he has been occasionally cited by some media in Pakistan/other low-key countries, but just being mentioned in passing in those media is not sufficient. If any of them would dedicate an article to describe his person, it would be another matter, but as it is, he can claim to be at best mentioned in passing by third-rate newspapers. His "most notable" book was published by "CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform", i.e. a self-published site. So - yes, vanity bio, delete. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 17:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: Just a two-bit hack, trying it on. Self-published books with no readership do not a career make. Same for passing mentions in corrupt third world online news sites. prat (talk) 21:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 19:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 19:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete: The man in this picture looks nothing like the one in the article. And he's publishing eight books a year on topics ranging from better sex manuals to bodice-ripper fiction to Middle East politics to computer manuals written in flawless English?
 * The last link preceding contains a random highlighted string of text, "some professional-grade Tablet PCs use pressure sensitive films", which when thrown at Google attracts hits to other technical write-ups predating the 2012 copyright of the Adonis work in question. The likely source of Mr. Adonis' astonishingly broad expertise comes into focus: serial plagiarism. Pax 13:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  15:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Not referenced properly, not notable, deletion is the right action.--DThomsen8 (talk) 01:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. To say that newspapers in Pakistan, India, and countries within Africa, and those with an high concentration of African and Indians is low key and lacks credence because they are from the third world amounts to racial profiling.

Those references are adequate.

Are we saying that the author should be removed from Wikipedia because of the colour of his skin or because he is from a third world country?

Almost all of the authors in the past 72hrs that were nominated for deletion by Bueller 007 are either of African or Indian ancestry (check his log).

Is this a coincidence? Maybe.

Is this suggesting that two particular ethnic groups should NOT be included in Wikipedia unless they are extremely notable?

Additionally, a large swathe of Guyanese authors and musicians were selected by Bueller 007 for removal from Wikipedia.

Are we saying because these people are from a third world country (as the more wealthier editors from in the North puts it), should NOT be in Wikipedia, even if they are notable in their country and an extensive region?

Nonetheless, if editors are of the view that an article on Dennis Adonis should be removed because his writings (as established in the article and references) challenges slavery, Indian indenture sufferings, and Middle Eastern politics, then delete it. But if fairness and non-racial profiling is not part of your culture, then do the right thing and be more objective in your analysis of the page.

I am from the Caribbean, and have accessed several additional sources of reference that would substantiate notability, but I realize much of them are not available online. I would choose not to use them, as Bueller 007 has already removed quite a few of them for reasons that only God knows.

The article was edited to reflect what is confirmed in the references, all of which are reliable sources that is used throughout Wikipedia for less referenced articles. Wikipedia’s policy on notability does to confine an author to be listed simply on the basis of an award. The problem here seems to Bueller 007 failure to accept that an author that is known throughout the Caribbean does not necessarily means that he has to be known in Canada or elsewhere to warrant a page on Wikipedia.

Bueller 007 should invite other contributors to give the article a chance to be edited for additional references (if needs be), before targeting two particular racial group of authors for removal from Wikipedia.

Additionally, another editor seems to find it impossible for an author to pen eight books in a year. This is nonsense. I don’t think we should envy what someone else can do if we can’t. Are you saying that is impossible? Please.

Another also highlighted piece of a sentence to say that seems like plagiarism, and then add the assumption that all of the man’s books are plagiarized. Again that is utter nonsense. That statement is seemingly vindictive and defamatory at best about that Caribbean writer.

Note is take of the repeated tone on self-published books, and 50 Shades of Gray comes to mind. Are we saying that self-published books (even those without an award) should not be in Wikipedia?

I also looked at the statement about the photo, and can see that the photo at the top of the article seems to be an editorial oversight (my personal guess). Because the same face on Wikipedia is correctly embedded more than once throughout the article.

Anyway, in conclusion “I have a Dream”, that profiling of a certain creed of authors would cease, and that all editors would apply fairness to their assessment of articles associated with writers of a certain skin tone. Thank you. Webwatchergy (talk) 10:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. So I'm a racist? Or else, based on the shoddiness of the references provided for this Guyanese "author", I went through some Wikipedia categories of other Guyanese "celebrities" and deleted the ones who had crummy articles that did not establish notability.  Many of which were already flagged as "not meeting general notability criteria" or had previously been nominated for speedy deletion before I got to them.  (And in fact, Webwatchergy himself/herself had already commented on some of them to say that he/she did not think the person was notable. But now's not the time for ideological consistency.)
 * On the topic of this article, there's absolutely no evidence provided that Dennis Adonis is known throughout the Caribbean, except for laughably false newspaper articles that make grandiose claims like "his book is being considered for the New York Times Bestseller List"! Meanwhile, that same book gets about 38 Google hits, has never had a book review in a major source, etc.  I went through every single one of the references in the Dennis Adonis article, looking for the information that was supposed to be supported by them.  The majority of the references were misquoted or taken out of context.  For instance, before I got to it, the article for Dennis Adonis claimed that he was a CNN reporter.  When in fact he has a CNN iReport profile, which ANYONE can sign up for.  Stuff like that.
 * To me, it looks like someone's upset that they wasted their time writing Wikipedia articles about a "nobody" and a "nobook". Bueller 007 (talk) 16:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Of all the books listed in the article, WorldCat seems only to be aware of the Windows 8 book and its holdings are a mere 4. This is an uncontroversial delete. Agricola44 (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC).
 * Delete. Notability can't be established right now. I'd also like to hint at this request directed to me by Webwatchergy. What I first thought to be a good faith request for translation appears now like soapboxing to me. De728631 (talk) 18:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete (Special:diff/643066382 & Special:diff/643069903) Unacceptable.-- AldNon Ucallin?☎ 19:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. This is my final comment on this article.

Again, though there is a greater number of delete votes that actually do not provide any detailed reason as required by Wikipedia, I am still optimistic that an Administrator would see reasons why the article ought not to be deleted.

References: the sources listed as references are credible sources that are used throughout Wikipedia, and a few have provided extensive information on the author that did not require any significant research. I had stated earlier that to suggest that an author is not notable because he might only be widely known in one country, is from a low key (poor country) as Bueller 007 puts it, or a particular geographic region, is not consistent with Wikipedia policies for deletion. Nominating an article for deletion because the nominator feels that the references are from “Low key countries”, is not a reason in any way for deletion. As a matter of fact it is discriminatory and against Wikipedia’s policies.

Notability: the coverage established in the references would even make a adequate argument for the person to be considered for inclusion under Wikipedia’s Any_biography.

Neutrality: From reading the article, the controversy and criticisms sections alone have drowned out any claim that the article is promotional. Because I do not see anything benefitting to the author in those sections and even within the entire article itself. When I first discovered the article, I have repeatedly edited the article for neutrality and facts. Bueller 007 even went ahead and edited the criticisms and controversies section and even expanded to identify incidents for which the author was acsued in more detail. So for him to accept one section of an article and even using the reference himself, but then claiming that the references has no merit is contradictory. Furthermore, the claims raised by the article deletion nominator are untrue or is no longer valid since the article has gone through several edits to correct any perceived inconsistencies.

Overall, there are no irrefutable arguments to remove the article.

Fortunately, Wikipedia has made it clear that majority vote numbers does not necessarily translate to mean that an article should be deleted, especially when the voters fail to provide any significant, justifiable or detailed reason as to why the article ought to be deleted. At best, most the delete votes are just a single line with two or three words that provided no proper explanation. This usually makes the vote seems as if a voter is simply being supportive of the nominator, especially if there is a pattern of the same group of people inter-voting within each other’s nominations or are strangely voting throughout Wikipedia in unison.

I am sure that an Administrator’s fair review of the article and review of the references will support my argument that the article belongs to Wikipedia, and has scope for continued editing over a period of time.

In closing, I hold no grudge against the nominator or any of my fellow Wikipedians that have voted contrary to my belief. In my quiet moments, I sincerely think that Bueller 007 may not had necessarily mean any harm, but was expressing a fundamental right that is given to all of us. And that is a right to his own opinions.

After all, even genuine opinions can often be misconstrued to mean something else that it is probably not.

My only regret is that I should have properly read through Wikipedia’s policies, and engage Bueller 007 more professionally on this talk page when he suggested that I should, and I am sure that the article would have been better guided for more substantiated edits, probably leading to even favourable results.

For me, this has been a positive learning experience; and I look forward to having more healthier arguments (if needs be) with my fellow Wikipedians in the future, in our quest to make Wikipedia a better place.

Bueller 007, though I do not agree with your deletion nominations reasons, I sincerely agree with your notion regading some earlier elements (and indirect advise) within the article, which I was able to correct. Its all in the learning process.

Anyway, let us see which direction this will go for the administrator. Thanks all. Webwatchergy (talk) 08:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.