Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marko Stout


 * 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. Michig (talk) 13:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Marko Stout

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

BLP with sources that fail WP:V / WP:GNG. Sources are press releases. (COI / allegedly paid editing - see WP:COIN, Sockpuppet_investigations/Amyxcell) Widefox ; talk 16:50, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note - see my remarks about CNN iReport not being a WP:RS, and BBC Record London is nothing to do with the BBC, also not a RS. Widefox ; talk 18:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. He appears to be very good at self promotion, but there's no significant coverage in reliable sources. The references in the article are misleading: for example, the Boston Finance ref is actually a press release, and the CNN ref is user generated content. Pburka (talk) 01:38, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep The article about Marko Stout passes WP:N, especially with regard to his work in the field of Fine Arts: renowned museums, such as the Moscow Museum of Modern Art feature his work. Both CNN (article), as well as Boston.com (article) are reliable sources that discuss Stout. I hope this helps. With regards, A R E N Z O Y 1 6 A • t a l k • 12:33, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The CNN ref is user generated content ("Not verified by CNN") and the Boston.com ref is a press release ("By: Press Release Nation"). Pburka (talk) 14:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes they aren't CNN but CNN iReport which is WP:UGC so not a reliable source and does not count for notability. I've already tagged as such. Widefox ; talk 04:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, Subject seems to pass notability. His work is featured at Exhibitions including New York City Art Galleries and there is any hardly any chance to have a solo exhibition over there. Not every person is mentioned in tier 1 sources and really that doesn't makes him non-notable. My vote is keep for him. Ireneshih (talk) 08:14, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Which "New York City Art Gallery" in particular? There are thousands, and many will host anybody's solo shows for a fee. Pburka (talk) 14:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It's the Gloria Stein Gallery I think, but New York City Art Galleries sounds more impressive. Pol098 (talk) 16:54, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, the "Gloria Stein Art Gallery" has never hosted an exhibit other than Marko Stout's. I'm not even sure the gallery exists. Pburka (talk) 18:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That archive.org link is WP:UGC video (as good as a youtube video) - not a WP:RS, and so doesn't count for notability, let alone for a WP:BLP. When you say "Not every person is mentioned in tier 1 sources and really that doesn't makes him non-notable" - that really is a good definition of a non-notable person. we go by what we can verify in RS. Widefox ; talk 18:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep: It is crystal clear to me of the reliability of the sources CNN and BBC Record London, per that both sources, subject's notability is established, both sources have editorial board, and are third party sources.Justice007 (talk) 12:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The CNN link is user generated content: it says "Not verified by CNN" in the corner. The BBC Record appears to have no connection to the BBC, and the link in question is a reprinted press release. Pburka (talk) 14:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, I don't think anyone dare to publish a matter, news and etc in a way that is legally prohibited, and the world wide media is yet unaware of it?!!!, second it is a part of the CNN. The BBC Record London, whatever it is, has an editorial board, so it is a third party source. What do you mean a press release?!, while that is published in the BBC, every institution send written things in a press release shape, how it is published, that is a layout of the media. On that point, the press release, here is as a source for, not itself.Justice007 (talk) 16:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not "legally prohibited", whatever that means; it's just not reviewed by anyone at CNN. You or I could write a story, and CNN would be happy to host it on their iReports website with no editorial oversight. And the BBC Record has nothing to do with the BBC. It seems to be two guys in London who run a community newspaper and republish press releases. Can you clarify what the rest of your comment means? I don't understand your point about the press release being a source for itself. Pburka (talk) 19:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Both iReport (it is not under CNN editorial control, but just WP:UGC) and BBC Record London (which is nothing to do with the BBC) are clearly not WP:RS, so a decision based on them being RS is flawed. Widefox ; talk 18:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong delete Promotional article with wholly unreliable sources: WP:UGC and press releases.  Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE.  Article is maintained by a nest of undeclared COI editors, blocked socks, in violation of TOU .  Logical Cowboy (talk) 18:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Snow delete I checked the first 4 sources, but someone had been there before me.  All user generated, dead, sponsored or a blog.  Does not seem to meet GNG.  No credit even on IMDB for She Wants Me.  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC).


 * The bigger problem is that we don't know who sent these press releases and other information to the various sites. If we remove all the unreliable sources, the article becomes an unsourced BLP.  And some of the information is contentious - for example the She wants Me claim and therefore all the other film claims, which I will now remove until they are reliably sourced .  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC).


 * Keep, Looking at all the discussion in detail Subject seems to be Multimedia artist with strong fan following on social networks. He seems to be notable and popular in New York. Although there are not any major mentions in tier1 newspapers but still his work makes in notable. I will be surprised to see if this page is deleted here altough his facebook page is verified. All there might not be any strong references to verify his claims but still subject if notable and the page can be marked for more references. My decision is a Keep for this page.Shashanksinghvi334 (talk) 04:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Shashanksinghvi334 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.
 * A facebook source is WP:PRIMARY so does not count for notability. It is not primarily a WP:VOTE, and the strength of your reasoning based on notability guidelines should be considered in closing. Widefox ; talk 18:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete I cannot find significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 03:48, 15 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted: as article is relisted and has changed, pinging User:Renzoy16 User:Ireneshih User:Justice007 User:Shashanksinghvi334 for replies to the points put to them. Widefox ; talk 18:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete because there just aren't enough independent sources. Even the web pages for CNN and BBC, which are normally reliable sources, have an opinion problem. Epicgenius (talk) 21:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks, and just to be clear, it's not a real BBC website. Logical Cowboy (talk) 21:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying. I saw "BBC" in the name and assumed it was a BBC website. Epicgenius (talk) 00:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Wikipedia is not an advertising platform. Stop rewarding bad faithed editing and delete spam. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:08, 19 November 2014 (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.