Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnny de Brest


 * 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. Without prejudice to creating an article about his possibly notable work Vladracul by somebody without a WP:COI; the article can be userfied to that end if necessary.  Sandstein  07:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Johnny de Brest

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Declined speedy. This is a vanity piece created, I suspect, by the subject himself. The tone is totally unencyclopaedic, and an inordinate effort would need to be made to bring it into conformity with our standards of a biography. The subject obviously has a serious conflict of interest in this case, as demonstrated by the media uploaded; he has also created an article about his grandfather, which I daresay passes muster, but I digress. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Modify topic/cut I agree the one reference does not establish the notability of the person. However, I think there is enough notability on Vladracul to justify saving that portion of the article. If more is not found to justify the notability of Breast, I suggest we move the article to Vladracul, and leave a short blurb about the artist as it relates to the notable project, but cut most of the material making it sound like a promo ad for him. Monty 845 02:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Vladracul and clean up would be probably the best solution. The cycle was internationally exhibited and attracted the attention of multiple reliable media:Washington City Paper, Filmmaker Magazine (review of the exhibition in the Goethe-Institut Washington, the article cites also LA Weekly), the website kunstaspekte mentions the exhibition in the Goethe-Institut Hong Kong, G-News archives contain reviews in the Washington Post (hidden behind the paywall). I think it is enough for an informative article here on Wikipedia. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete -- I do not see a single reliable source in this BLP, thus it fails notability. Bearian (talk) 23:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Stay THE STRANGE THING IS - AGAIN - AND JOHNNY DE BREST IS TRAUMATIZED - EXACTLY AFTER PUBLISHING NEGATIVE EXPERIENCES WITH SCIENTOLOGY AND MADONNA (who is Scientology too) IN GERMANY (Internet) - THERE IS A SABOTAGE ON JOHNNY DE BREST AT WIKIPEDIA (one Rule! of Wikipedia is, if an Article is accepted, and Wikipedia Johnny de Brest is around Year online and was accepted!) you can't delete him!--BergHollywood (talk) 02:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * StayIf the Artwork is important, the Artist is important too. Johnny de Brest had the whole "LA Weekly Good Times"-Page in Los Angeles in Summer 2002! It was a page about the Artist! Even Rainer Werner Fassbinder or German Director Wim Wenders had'n it!--BergHollywood (talk) 02:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * StayJohnny de Brest Wikipedia is more than 1 Year online and one of the rules! of Wikipedia is, an Article can't be deleted after he was accepted, he was accepted.--BergHollywood (talk) 02:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * StayI am surprised that nobody has Problems with the Wikipedia-Madonna-Article, that's an Advertisment, and we all know that madonna is Scinetology!--BergHollywood (talk) 02:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * StayI feel suspected mobbing, Scientology tried to kill Johnny de Brest in Los Angeles 2002 and I wouldn't be surprised if they do everything - after de Brest published the Attacks on him - to suppress any Information about Johnny de Brest, and I bet Scientology has his Spys at Wikiepdia!--BergHollywood (talk) 02:17, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * BergHollywood, your claims are extremely inappropriate for this forum. This discussion is intended to consider whether a subject of a Wikipedia article meets the notability requirements. The notability must be supported by reliable and independent sources. If the sources aren't provided, the article can be deleted. That's all, there's no conspiracy or spying. Please, familiarize yourself with the mentioned Wikipedia policies and comment constructively. Thanks for your understanding. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

And the Wikipedia Rules says if an Article was accepted, they can't delete it! And Johnny de Brest Wikipedia was accepted for more than one year!--BergHollywood (talk) 12:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Stay It is a Conspiracy, and it belongs to a Conspiracy that they'll never would confirm it, especially if they are involved!
 * This debate is a part of Wikipedia process called Articles for deletion (standard, legitimate and established procedure here on Wikipedia), and this debate will decide whether or not the article stay. Anyone can comment here constructively: Scientologists, muslims, punkers, scuba divers, Mormons, miners etc. That's all I can say, the rest of your comment is a bit confusing, do you really believe we are Scientology conspirators? Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've been accused on lots of things at Wikipedia, but favoring Scientology is not one of them, LOL! As may be seen from my user page, I am an Episcopalian. Bearian (talk) 01:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I added the sources mentioned here at AfD to the article. Additionally, I found another coverage published by Die Welt (in German). Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I began agreeing with Vejvančický, but looking at some of the Google News sources, I am unsure. I do not want to do a disservice to this subject, but I am concerned that there may be a hoax afoot, via adding ad material to editable sources.
 * A hit on Google News, that (no longer?) has any mention of Vladracula . It is clear, if you look at the preceding hit (excuse the length; it is the translator), that something is going on, but what exactly is unclear to me.
 * I am suspicious of the following hit's overflowing praise; from this many reviews, we should be able to get a hit that is not behind a paywall
 * Vladracula on ArtNews.org (and check out that ArtNews article, too, for a real feast of WP:PEACOCK) Anarchangel (talk) 11:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eduemoni↑talk↓  03:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete Terrible vanity article, falls short on enough decent sources too.--Sloane (talk) 21:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - I like the pictures, but this needs a huge working over to get it up to WP standards, assuming something like notability can be demonstrated. No opinion as to inclusion-worthiness. Carrite (talk) 01:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Question: The article tells us that Between February and June 1997 Phoinissa (Bombay based artist) and Johnny de Brest's street-art-Foto-Fix-placards "We Crash Them All" and "We Shot Them All" got a lot attention in Berlin, Münster (Germany), New York and Los Angeles. A lot of attention in such places implies a lot of press coverage. Where is this press coverage? -- Hoary (talk) 07:26, 3 April 2011 (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.