Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyle Schlesinger (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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 13:45, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Kyle Schlesinger
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Autobiography written by subject. No references provided. His claim to WP:GNG may have been his establishment of Cuneiform Press, another article he himself wrote, but that's been deleted. His three separate accounts can be clearly seen in the history of this article:, , and. This looks like a long-term campaign of self-promotion to me. I don't think he's a notable person and I don't think his press company is notable. Daphne  Lantier  18:45, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. The outcome of the original AFD was sound. The fact that an editor subsequently removed the references supporting that outcome is not grounds for deletion. The subject's efforts in a hagiographic direction can be suppressed through ordinary editing. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.   (talk) 19:04, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not appear to pass WP:GNG. ElKevbo (talk) 20:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Our nominator states: "I don't think he's a notable person and I don't think his press company is notable." Nominations for deletion are not supposed to be based on wikipedia contributors PERSONAL opinion on topics.  We are supposed to rely on the opinions of reliable, authoritative source, on experts.  And when an individual is an expert in a specialized field one of the factors that establishes that individuals notability is peer recognition.In Schlesinger's case we have National Geographic choosing to quote him, and characterize him as an expert in his field.  Our wikipedia article says he was picked to be the keynote speaker at a conference in his field.  Being picked to be a keynote speaker helps establish his notability.Nominator!  If you are going around nominating articles for nomination, just because you PERSONALLY don't think those topics are notable, or if you are weighing in at AFD with opinions that heavily rely on your PERSONAL opinion -- well please stop.There are lots of topics I, personally, think are nonsense.  But I don't try to censor the wikipedia, and prevent others working on articles on those topics -- so long as they manage to do so in ways that comply with our policies and long-standing conventions.  I expect other contributors to do the same.  Geo Swan (talk) 23:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a very uncharitable way to interpret "I don't think he's a notable person." More importantly, our notability policy explicitly says that "significant coverage is more than a trivial mention" so simply being quoted in an article doesn't pass muster. Nor does simply being a keynote speaker at a conference (hell, *I* have been a keynote speaker and I don't come anywhere close to being notable by Wikipedia standards).  We need solid, reliable sources that focus specifically on this individual.  Right now, we don't have them.  ElKevbo (talk) 00:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * AGF does not require us to fail to take a nominator's justification at face value. Nominator explicitly asserted the nomination was triggered by their personal opinion that Schlesinger wasn't notable.No offense, but your reply includes a common fallacy advanced in AFD.  It is very rare for an individual to have their wikipedia notability established by one sole notability factor -- like winning a Victoria Cross.  Practically every individual we consider notable has had their notability established by adding up multiple notability factors.  You too have been a keynote speaker? Congratulations.  And, if someone writes a wikipedia article about you, and someone else nominates it for deletion, you can rely on me asserting that it your keynote is a factor that helps establish your wikipedia notability.All you said, in your first comment here, was that you thought Schlesinger didn't measure up to GNG...Okay, which version do you think didn't measure up to GNG?  Was it the March 2017 version?  Or was it a more detailed version from 2009?  Geo Swan (talk) 00:42, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Further comments should reference Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, not the purported mindsets of discussion participants.
 * Note: the version of this article, following the 2009 AFD attempt, was in better shape than this version. It has been extensively trimmed.  Okay.  So I should be able to find the explanation for those extensive excisions, on Talk:Kyle Schlesinger.Guess what?  No explanation.Was this vandalism, or just inexperience?  I dunno.Anyhow, I urge anyone who decides to take the time to weigh in here, to take a look at a version from mid 2009.  Geo Swan (talk) 00:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:51, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:51, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:51, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:51, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:51, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:51, 26 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Self promotion. As per comment above, creator of page is subject of page (autobio) and they have three accounts as per - "His three separate accounts can be clearly seen in the history of this article: Kschlesinger, KyleSchlesinger, and Kyle Schlesinger." which is questionable. Netherzone (talk) 01:30, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete a non-notable poet, writer. If the person truly was notable than someone besides the subject would have created the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:37, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I have tried to clean up the references and reviewed the ones in the older version from 2009. There is very little to substantiate his notability, but I will note one review by Johanna Druckerin Afterimage (magazine) from 2006 that seems a real critical assessment of Schablone Berlin. Unfortunately, it's paywalled, so I have no idea how substantial that review is. As for the current citations, ignoring the dead links (I made an effort to find cached versions, but I can't find them):
 * muse is a primary source (interview)
 * amfm is a primary source (interview)
 * uhv is a primary source (faculty listing)
 * kaurab is book review in Kaurab with no biographical information about Schlesinger

The entire article hinges on two book reviews, but all biographical information comes from primary sources. As sympathetic as I am to letterpress publishers and book artists; that's not enough. We need significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources, and that's not the case here. Unless better sources emerge: Delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mduvekot (talk • contribs) 22:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. One webzine book review (and another that might have something to say if someone can get past the paywall) is not enough, and none of the other sources from 2009 or now add much value. I don't think he passes WP:AUTHOR, WP:GNG, or WP:PROF.  The three-account autobio aspects (maybe more than three; see contributions of  noted by Netherzone are also troubling. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Thinly sourced with sources less than reliable... fails simplest of WP:GNG standard for notability.  Cllgbksr (talk) 04:45, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt. Wikipedia is not a free webhost for people to post their autobiographies.  -- RoySmith (talk) 12:58, 30 March 2017 (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.