Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Styn


 * 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 keep. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour  (have a chat) 02:19, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

John Styn

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:Notability WP:SPIP WP:SELF

WP:NOTABILITY - Webby: Anyone can be nominated, in any 1 of 1000 categories, for $175 WP:SPIP - Editor: MOSESPINK possibly the subject of the article. Editor: Plaintive plaintiff also possibly the subject of the article. Article is a purely promo piece.

WP:SELF - Ref's are interviews with the subject of the article, passing mentions, etc. PeterWesco (talk) 02:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. The San Diego City Beat article is a good ref. The interviews add up, and the early webby awards were notable (definitely not past mid-2000s though). I've added some more refs to the article. Yes, he's borderline, and his jobs involve self-promotion, but I think he clearly makes it over the bar, and the article is in a decent state (more prose, less lists, would be a good start for cleanup). —Quiddity (talk) 03:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. The nominator is misinformed (and misunderstands their sources) on their opinions about the webbies -- and who wrote the article.  I started the article, and I don't write promo pieces about non-notable subjects.  The cockybastard website that earned Styn his first Webhy is pretty notable and sourced as such as an early Internet phenomenon.  That was a big deal, as the webbies were one of the most important institutions on the web in 1997-2001, known informally as the academy awards of the Internet and covered extensively in the mainstream and tech press (see the Webby article or try googling it).  It wasn't until the mid 2000s that they became a pocket product of a web PR firm or whoever took it over and instituted the self-nomination / pay-to-play scheme.  That itself doesn't disqualify anything, so are most major piano and wine competitions.  That is just one in a series of other projects that made Styn notable over time (lasting notability) - as a blogger, adult entertainment producer / star, web producer, and yes, self-promoter.  He and his works are the subject of multiple, independent, significant third party reliable sourcing in a wide range of different sources, from a book on brands to the adult entertainment trade publication, and web trade publications.  You have to be creative finding sources for the guy because he's gone by so many different names over time, and all need to be sourced as him.  It does appear that he or someone connected with him has been editing this article in promotional COI fashion, but that's a cleanup / editor education matter, not a notability question. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't know his history and I ran across this article by accident.   With that said, to someone who is unfamiliar with him, when I checked refs and they were/are all interviews (WP:SELF), and one sentence mentions, I have to question notability.   There are other people with blogs, webbys, cocky attitudes, and a desire for fame/ego that don't warrant a WP page.   A large percentage (majority?) of the refs are interviews and others should not be considered refs.  For example: (Wilson, Michael (September 18, 2012). "Real Photo, Fake Family". NY Times.), the aforementioned is an article about scammers using photos of real people and John Styn's brother happened to be the guy in the photo.   Per WP:GNG  '"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material."'  PeterWesco (talk) 05:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * A little dose of WP:BEFORE never hurt anyone. Frankly, when I started researching this I had no idea how many different things he's done, and got in the press.  In the porn world alone (the industry, not so much the fans) he was a phenomenon.  Prodding old articles with multiple editors' contributions is a little fast, you could always attach a cleanup or notability tag, or just discuss the matter on the talk page.  I've started a number of bio articles about minor celebrities, sometimes I notice that they or their fans have found the article and start taking it in their own direction.  I just didn't want to confront him about COI, that can be a lot of work.  And obviously, his agenda here is different than ours.  - Wikidemon (talk) 06:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed on the difference in agenda, COI editing, and (to a lesser extent) WP:BEFORE.  I have no WP:AXE to grind on this article.  WP:RESUME and WP:SPAM, in general, are issues that affect the quality of WP.  I respect your input and appreciate your feedback. PeterWesco (talk) 06:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. The popularity of his TED-X talk, as well as his appearance at multiple conferences as a guest speaker also attests to his influence. His early fight against Fruit Of the Loom as a freedom of speech issue was picked up by Wired magazine and other online publications. To destroy this really would cut us off from a valuable source of what drove the early web. John Styn really is one of the early movers of online performance art. He combined porn, free speech, vanity, and selflessness, and has most of the bona fides to prove it. 11:36, 3 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4930:116:0:24E5:BCA0:2C8C:2221 (talk)


 * Keep. - an inspiring individual who helps spread care, inspiration and life joy. Essential qualities in this world that are too often forgotten. I can not see why anybody would want to delete this entry. This man brings light and warmth into this world. KEEP his article please. Birgit from Germany, resident in England, soon visiting SF. x — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.28.70.182 (talk) 16:56, 3 October 2012‎
 * Keep. - John Styn may self-promote, but that does not reduce his importance as a celebrity and influential person on the Internet. He has a significant following within the Burning Man community, therefore is of interest to tens of thousands of people in that sphere alone. He produces a weekly video blog that goes out without fail, he's spoken at TED-x, he's published a book. He has genuine achievements to his name, both past and present. If everyone who self-promoted were deleted from Wikiepedia, it would be a slim volume indeed. No-one gets very far without some degree of self-promotion, and that in itself does not constitute one of the criteria for deletion, according to my reading of those criteria. I'm unclear why this article has been nominated for deletion. It's not offensive, it does not violate copyright or infringe on anyone's rights, and this person is worthy of note.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoAnnTurner (talk • contribs) 17:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep but I'm biased. He's "kinda famous at burning man", and maybe kinda youtube famous as well, but probably non-burners won't know who he is.  I'd consider the article worth keeping but I'm a burner myself so maybe I'm not objective.  If you need to count youtube views, then keep in mind that he's been making many videos for many years, so make sure you count them all.  I'd recommend keeping the article because John Styn does an amazing job at bridging the gap between crazy fru fru peace & love hippieisms that are central to burner culture and more ordinary world views.  In short, Sytn is amongst the most effective public philosophers in a fringe but exceedingly influential subculture and has made that subculture much more accessible to the general public.  I'd expect an awful lot of silicon valley movers are watching his videos, for example.  Recall that Notability (web) says "When evaluating the notability of web content, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education."  - Jeff Burdges — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.53.4.176 (talk) 19:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Twitter influx
Welcome to Halcyon twitter followers! I must say, I did chuckle at his followup tweet.

Regardless of how this discussion turns out, I hope you all stick around and become regular editors. Check out the Introduction for a quick guide, and see the Five pillars to grok our core philosophies and policies.

(Do note, that AfD (articles for deletion/discussion) is not a "number of supporters" process, but is entirely based on reference to our policies and guidelines. One of the cores is finding WP:Reliable sources. HTH) —Quiddity (talk) 22:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. — Frankie (talk) 14:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. - This is the article I learned how to edit wiki on, and I did quite a bit of research. He is notable for a long history of accomplishments, and quite a few other things that just never turned up in the media (If I could find more references to some of his other work, it would be in there.)Pizzamancer (talk) 09:12, 7 October 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.