Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnny Joo


 * 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. The creating user withdrew their nomination and the consensus was reaching this conclusion anyways.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   18:51, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Johnny Joo

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The page hardly exhibits notability except through various local usage of the subject's photographs, several photo galleries, and the repeated usage of one project for sourcing. Just because the subject took pictures that are featured on news aggregators does not necessarily mean that a biography is notable on Wikipedia. Most content appears to be written by the subject, creating a COI issue. Furthermore, the page is written like a CV and is very promotional. DrumSalad (talk) 19:10, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - The tone needs to be cleaned up, and the prose needs work. The sources and the notability is there (HuffPost, Business Insider), though –eggofreasontalk 19:13, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 19:29, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

*Strong Delete - Entirely promotional, poorly sourced, non-notable, and written by someone close to the subject or even the subject himself. I’m not sure this even qualifies as a snub perhaps a redirect or merge would be a better option. Corystaples (talk) 20:13, 3 February 2019 (UTC) — Corystaples (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment all the books are self published. It seems like it might meet WP:GNG but not WP:ARTIST. Maybe. --Theredproject (talk) 19:56, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep setting aside the state of the article, why did I get so may excellent results in Google news? I stopped reading after the third consecutive page of coverage-- i.e. thirty news articles on his work. Notability is clear as day, with sustained in-depth coverage over time in reliable sources. Meets GNG but probably not WP:ARTIST.
 * New York Post
 * New York Daily News
 * ABC7 news
 * Mirror.co.uk
 * The Telegraph, UK
 * Yahoo News
 * News.com.au
 * Forbes
 * IlPost (Italy)
 * Akron Beacon Journal
 * Business Insider

and so on...ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:40, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Has anyone bothered to read the sources listed above or the ones listed in the article because the subject is not mentioned at all in a majority of them with the exception of a photo caption that says 'pictures by Johnny Joo.' The stories themselves are not about Johnny Joo. In fact, the few that do are actually paid press releases by the subject himself through Catersnews and Barcroft Media, which are listed on every image because hey own them. Paying press to run stories and paying to have a wikipedia page written does not make one notable. A quick look at he article itself shows several sources that don't mention Joo at all like references #11,14,15 and so on. Even #27 Buzzfeed is another picture gallery with captions. Not to mention the whole exhibition section with no sources. Notable or not this article needs a lot of work as several editors already pointed out and tagged months ago. Cantonrubbernecks (talk) 04:04, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep: Links kindly provided by ThatMontrealIP show enough coverage and reliability to convince me. However, the article does need to be improved. Meticulo (talk) 12:33, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment This original article was listed on Freelancer to be created by the subject or someone close to him here https://m.freelancer.com/not-found?url=%2Fprojects%2Farticles%2Fwikipedia-create%2F&reason=with no mention of paid editing marked. Then it appears it was listed again for people to delete it. Surely, this must be the upside down world. Cantonrubbernecks (talk) 04:04, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Delete !votes (and the nomination itself) should be viewed in light of that fact that there is currently an open job request on Freelancer.com to get this article deleted. Yunshui 雲 水 10:49, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note to administrators Posting the link here as a proof https://www.freelancer.com/projects/articles/wikipedia-edit/ "I came across a man at a Starbucks boasting that he created his own Wikipedia page. It is entirely promotional with weak sources most of which are of the same project repeated over and over and image galleries. No substance or stories. Wikipedia told me it should be nominated for deletion because it’s promotional, poorly sourced and conflict of interest (speedy deletion) but I’m not on Wikipedia and need someone who is to report this on this page" Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:30, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming good faith on the AFD nomination... at the same time as I point out the nominator has under a dozen edits to his/her credit.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:54, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * and ThatMontrealIP I posted that job request, but after talking with GSS, I found that paid editing is frowned upon on Wikipedia and took the job post down. I did not hire anyone else to make edits, and in hindsight, this was a very scummy thing to do. I am new to all of this, and should never have considered using paid editors. Thank you for understanding, and PLEASE let me know if you have any questions!! DrumSalad (talk) 01:59, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you regret doing that. It's a clear instance of soliciting meatpuppetry. Pinging Doc James as he did some cleanup above already, and may know what is appropriate here.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:09, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, a very dumb decision. I believe now that this page should be kept now that I'm familiar with WP:GNG and other policies. Is there a way to revoke the AfC claim, or do I keep it here to let it run its course? Thanks! DrumSalad (talk) 14:56, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * There are no delete !votes (other than a stricken one from a guy you canvassed; I hope you paid him well, because he's not going to be allowed to edit Wikipedia again now) so you can simply withdraw this AFD - enter a new !vote as Withdrawn and an administrator will close it. Yunshui 雲 水 15:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I did not pay him anything when I closed the job. Again, I'm incredibly sorry for starting this whole mess with Freelancer.com anyway, Yunshui. It was wrong of me to do that. DrumSalad (talk) 15:18, 6 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Per multiple sources that are significant coverage in reliable secondary sources in and outside the article (HuffPost, Business Insider, and the ones linked here), he meets WP:GNG at least, which was the basis on why I accepted the article. Not to mention there seems to be a paid job ongoing to get this article deleted. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:30, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn Keep consensus and change of opinion on my part DrumSalad (talk) 15:18, 6 February 2019 (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.