Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michel Von Tell


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:52, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Michel Von Tell

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No notabilty for an encyclopedia article. Self promotion. Sources are not valid. The subject of this article is a complete unknown who hosts a show on youtube. There is no information about this self claimed journalist, moderator, filmmaker, author in reliable media. Richardharrison999 (talk) 22:09, 26 September 2013 (UTC) — Richardharrison999 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * NOTE: The article that is currently up for deletion, Michel Von Tell is a recreation of an article, Michel von Tell, that was deleted through an AfD just a few months ago: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michel von Tell. Thomas.W   talk to me  14:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Richardharrison999 talk did this account spicaly for this request. he found this journalist here very quickly and hi knows him but is saying he is not notable. he also does 5 times vadalism to this article - wroting unsourced information and is changing the article in a way to make it look bad. he is clearly personal montivated, is useing diffrent 1 edit accounts, do vadalisim to the article. the article is well sourced and clearly notable. finaly it is still under construction and should not be changed at all. this deletion request is clearly vadalism quick keep Adniim- (talk) 08:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * My motivation is that i do not like people who misuse wikipedia projects for self promotion. It's true that i created this account to start the deletion request. German wikipedia deleted this article and had to ban a group of agressive sockpuppets connected to this topic.--Richardharrison999 (talk) 08:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Adniim, please dont delete the afd template. That is vandalism. And dont revert my edits without answering to my points on the talk page.--Richardharrison999 (talk) 08:53, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * If this person is not notable.1. Why do you know him? 2. Why you used 3 diffrent IPS to do vadalism to it? 3. Why you send so much work to make it delet? 4. Why you find it here in some hours with not eaven an WP account? 5 Why you know this well how wikipedia works with no real account and why you dont úse your real one? It s absolutly clear you are personal motivataed and with your huge motivation and you more or less knowloge about this guy - its the best proof of how well known he is. Adniim- (talk) 08:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I talked with an admin about this and he is quite looking at you. i removed it cause of your vadalism to the article.

the article is under construction and you dont have to edit it. thats for first. you also dont have to put in unsourced stuff. and such edits by users with 1 edit accounts with also eaven know wikipedia as well as you are not serious. you show very well you are not new here and know wiki very well - but 1 edit account- smells a lot. also it shows you personal ideological motivation very well.Adniim- (talk) 09:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm completely new to en.wikipedia, but i have some experience in the wikipedia world. How is that a problem? Why is it wrong to edit under an ip adress? My edit were reasonable and i explained it on the talk page and in the edit summary. You are just reverting anything and talking vaguely about vandalism. Actually you are the user banned from german wikipedia due to heavy sockpuppet use and personal attacks


 * I know this person (von Tell) only because of link-spam and an now deleted article from german wikipedia. How can you say that this guy is obviously notable. There are only self-referential sources. Your link to swiss-TV is not working. MMnews is a dubious blog. Presseanzeiger is an open and free platform for public relation. Why are you hiding that the show is basically just a telephone interview. Why are you hiding that german journalist Scholl-Latour does not really appear in that Bye Bye lugo movie. You can just hear him briefly on the phone in the beginning. --Richardharrison999 (talk) 09:24, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Of course you are new - thats why you know exactly how everthing works here - and you know the unknown von tell - and the first thing you did on the huge wikipedia was the find a quite new article of a unknown person u know :) of course.

it abolutly not relevant if there maybe was once an other article or maybe an other user did something. here its about this article. and again you do nothing else then hardly find a reason to get this article deleted. no fundamental stuff.so you know allso the unknown movie of the unknown guy. bravo:). scholl latour is in the movie - a voice apaperans is the same. where do you know its just phone interviews? do you know the shows of the unknown person? are you part of his team? do you got sources its phone interviews? where is the diffrents if it would be an interview by phone. i hear all the time phone interviews on cbs, nbc,cnn and so on. as good as you know the work of this guy. you know all the movies and the shows like you say. you must be ex member of the team or his biggest fan :) it s not getting better if you repeat yourself all the time.

this article is well sourced and notable and also under constuction. there is nothing more to say. Adniim- (talk) 09:30, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I know the guy and the movie because of the spam in de.wikipedia. You linked the movie, so you dont have to be a genius to follow that link and watch it on youtube. Check [WP:BIO] and you will quickly come to the conclusion that this guy here is not notable enough.--Richardharrison999 (talk) 09:52, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * like i told you its not getting better if you repeat yourself all the time. yes i linked the movie. i linked 30 hours movies and shows. and you all watched them in the last hours and know how they recordet it and and and. come on - stop it pls - it becoming more and more funny. this article is well sourced and notable and also under constuction. there is nothing more to say. Adniim- (talk) 09:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Do not aks questions if you don't want me to answer.--Richardharrison999 (talk) 09:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC) — Richardharrison999 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * keep Good sources, looks quite notable to me. Also there is an attitude to improve the articlee. Since when do we execute deletion-requests on articles who are under construction? Ginosti (talk) 10:53, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Is it allowed to manipulate other users signature like Adniin is doing here? Please stop it!--Richardharrison999 (talk) 12:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no manipulation - Your insubstantial attacks against this user becoming more and more a pharse. Ginosti (talk) 12:36, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Not notable. No substantial coverage in reliable and independent sources. There's a few web hits, but it's all either his self-produced videos, or forums/blogs/user-generated content. I can't find anything to show Bye Bye Ludo or any of his other works might be notable either (a creator of notable TV/film is generally notable, but nothing he's made appears to be notable). To establish notability, we need sources such as: news articles about Von Tell in print or online; reviews or other coverage of his TV work by professional critics; multiple paragraphs in published books/magazines/newspapers. Links to his own work are irrelevant. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:06, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * National Library, Imdb, about 1 Mio views on YT, Russia Today biggest news TV after CNN, TV of Paraguay, over 1000 FB site,

DVD, a show with many highly notable guests, isbn, movie, audiobook, some newspapers / radio and mmnews articles - one of biggest economy news sites alexa rank 900 of the country. 10% of this should be enough. And dont forget - switzerland is a very small country - less people then NY city no discrimination - also article is still under constrution. Adniim- (talk) 13:36, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Not notable per others. This is Wikipedia, not Facebook or LinkedIn. Thomas.W   talk to me  15:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * WP:BIO

One of the following would be enought. take the one u like best 1 .Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media. MMnews (alexa rank 500 of germany), Russia today, paraguay television and some more. see in article (witch was/is still under construction). 2 Has had significant roles in multiple films, shows, or other productions. Films, audio books, shows, books, interviews, articles, big blogs etc see in article (witch was/is still under construction). 3 Has a large fan base. the videos on YT we see got about 1 million views, the movie 100 000 just for example. not so bad for a country with 7 million people and 4 diffrent languages. Adniim- (talk) 17:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is NOT a popularity contest. And this AfD is about establishing if the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, so instead of clogging up the page with tons of irrelevant text you should provide reliable sources that prove his notability. Writing that he "has a large fanbase" is just a total waste of time. Thomas.W   talk to me  17:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I gave you 3 points not just one. Every single one of this points makes it notable. thats the rules. not my rules - wikipedia rules. in the article are much more sources then in every second other wikipedia article, and ITs still under construction. i gave you reliable sources. or do you want to tell me RT and MMNews (alexa rank 500) for example are not reliable? And if you like it or not WP:BIO says IN CASE a large fan base would be "enoght" to be notable. so this point is not wasting time? so i dont realy see the problem. there is quite a lot. i think its enough right now but eaven if u see it diffrent. why you want delet it and dont want to improve it - finaly wait until it is not anymore under construction or wait a while and see how it evolve?? Adniim- (talk) 18:20, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No, that's not what Wikipedia's rules say. Nothing of what you wrote makes Michel von Tell notable because all of your claims are totally unsourced (and I'm talking about reliable sources), and are thus of no value what-so-ever when it comes to establishing notability. So go write about yourself on Facebook instead, where anyone can make whatever claims they want, because here you're just wasting everybody's time. Thomas.W   talk to me  18:30, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * what??? wanna kidding me? go to WP BIO and there you will find - i quote now the headline of '''WP BIO

Wikipedia:Notability (people), the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" – that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"[1] within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being "famous" or "popular" and later you will find Entertainers  Actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and celebrities Has a large fan base  Do you realy dont know the rules or do you dont want to know them??? and by the way - i asked you a question russia today and mmnews (one of the leading economy online news sites of the country) is not reliable to you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adniim- (talk • contribs) 18:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - if you'll scroll up a bit from the part of WP:BIO that says "Has a large fan base", you'll notice that it's part of a section that starts out with "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." This means that even if a subject meets the criteria of WP:BIO, they still have to meet the requirements of the general notability guideline. Also, you left out a key part of the sentence "Notable" in the sense of being 'famous' or 'popular'"—the sentence finishes with "– although not irrelevant – is secondary." This means that having had major roles in notable films and having a fan base are relevant, but they cannot be the primary evidence of notability. Please note that this is just a comment. I'm not arguing to delete this article or to keep it—I'm trying to help you better understand the relevant policies so that you know exactly what would be needed to prove notability. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 16:50, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:GNG. None of the sources are about Michel Von Tell (per WP:GNG and summarized at WP:42), or show his work has received significant critical attention, per WP:CREATIVE. sorry for the bold/big !vote this page is cluttered it's hard to see legitimate votes and new threads -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * pardon? what you talking about? all the sources are about him or the show? but i see no sources of the things you pretend!?Adniim- (talk) 18:29, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what kind of a witch count this is? One is writing the wikipedia rules new, the other says the sources are not about him but got no evidence and everybody can see they are ofcourse about him??? i gave you 3 offical wiki reasons why this is notabel and you just say its not and the 2 keep votes also just disapear? whats wrong here?


 * Sources about someone are different from sources by someone. The sources are all by Michel Von Tell. See WP:GNG, we need sources about Michel Von Tell, for example, a magazine article published in a reliable soruce by a journalist talking about Michel Von Tell. Not, for example, a magazine article by Michel Von Tell. This is how Wikipedia determines notable, by what other people say. Not by what the person themselves does or says. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:00, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * None of the keep-!votes has disappeared, they're both still here, both your !vote and the one by the newly created SPA Frank.hofstedter. The massive walls of both incoherent and irrelevant text you keep adding just makes them harder to spot. Thomas.W   talk to me  17:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * There is a keep-!vote by Ginosti hidden in that box with the irrelevant bickering. --Richardharrison999 (talk) 20:31, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * KEEP Adniim- (talk) 19:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Not notable. Large number of sources but none of much merit: 2 IMDB (not a reliable source, and only a total of 42 reviews); srf.ch source is broken 'page not found'; 7 to his own YouTube videos; both mmnews articles appear to be purely based around the same YouTube videos. The final presseanzeiger.de again to the same YT video. I'd conclude that this is just a relatively minor YouTube channel. It is claimed he has a 'large fan base', but if 2,220 subscribers and 398,511 total views is counted as notable then we would have to have wikipedia articles for vast numbers of YouTube channels. Claim for "frequent speaker in various forums and makes numerous appearances on television around the world including Russia Today" is not cited - If he really is this noteworthy then adding some links about these appearances is needed to give this article any real credibility. KylieTastic (talk) 19:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * KEEP I can't see any problem with this article. All sources are there and well founded, WP BIO is exceeded and finaly the article is new and is getting more and more expanded. Good for me. Frank.hofstedter (talk) 19:16, 27 September 2013 (UTC) — Frank.hofstedter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * this is just one chanel you will find much more videos on you tube. i found videos with over 1 mio views.. imdb is not ALONE reliable - but in combination with other stuff it is. 42 reviews is quite a lot. i know many important movies witch not got 5 reviews. and again. switzerland is a small country. like i told befor. switzerland got 7 million population. mmnews? around the same shows? how can be 2 shows the same? there is one article about 1 show and one about another show? what is bad with this? how it could be more good to you? :) u say its a minor show. how much minor shows you know where such guest come all the time? i dont know 3 shows in switerland where such notable guests apear. also you got isbn, national library, audiobook, dvd and some more. whats up here? first they said he got a large fan base but this is not important here. no popularty contest like he said. then i show it is important - then you say it is no large fan base. sorry. but this seams like a witch hunt for me? in one point you are right. it is not ready yet. thats why it was marked as "under mainor edit - do not tough" when our personal idiologic motivated 1 edit account came up  and made a deletion request.

Adniim- (talk) 19:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Please stop attacking me an focus yourself on supplying reliable sources. This is the same behaviour like in german wikipedia, which get you blocked.--Richardharrison999 (talk) 19:47, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * What i say about you is proveable. all the offens you did to me is just insinuation. but dont start again this insubstantial. you started to attack me - stalked me all day long. spended many hours just to this article mr 1 edit user, told other users i am a well known sockpuppet and so on - this is all not allowed here and you should been banned a long time. but i dont want to talk with you anymore. so leave me alone and stop stalking me! Adniim- (talk) 19:53, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * no real arguments for a delition. most of it had no substanz at all and whats left is refuted . i showed you 3 points in wp : bio so relevance is clearly geving - : WP:BIO

One of the following would be enought. take the one u like best 1 .Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media. MMnews (alexa rank 500 of germany), Russia today, paraguay television and some more. see in article (witch was/is still under construction). 2 Has had significant roles in multiple films, shows, or other productions. Films, audio books, shows, books, interviews, articles, big blogs etc see in article (witch was/is still under construction). 3 Has a large fan base. also its under construction. and then someone had a problem with the yt links. for the notable guest section i took a tamplet from RT. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_today   LINE 6  ;) exactly the same. if its good for them it should be good for in this case also..  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adniim- (talk • contribs) 06:37, 28 September 2013 (UTC) finaly this article is very well sourced. like i told you - if you say something else you have to delet 30% of wikipedia. looked up just5 minutes. here you got a long list of journalist articles witch does not got half of the sources and rebility. Osaremen ehi james Larry Izamoje Chief Olu Oyesanya Meir Javedanfar Óðinn Jónsson Juan Bautista Rivarola Matto Leopoldo Ramos Giménez Luis Ruffinelli Alfredo Seiferheld Adriano Irala Fulgencio R. Moreno Sali Nivica Ludmilla Pajo Bedri Pejani Skender Temali Mirko Gashi Mirshahin Agayev Aslan Aslanov Kurt Thyboe Monica Ritterband Henrik Qvortrup Hans Pilgaard this is just what i found in 5 minutes.. if you delet this article be straight and delet 30% of wikipedia. delet them all and then i give you 1000000 more. its realy a joke to say this article is not sourced- special cause its STILL UNDER CUNSTRUCTION - a persoanl motivated witch hunt of someone who dont like this journalist. you can easyly see if you just watch his contribs here — Richardharrison999 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. and this is just another point why this article is notable. if someone spends THAT much energy on deleting it must be very well known. by the way. if this madness goes on this article should get an article just for the reason cause it had the biggest delet disc. in history.Adniim- (talk) 05:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete He is not notable and fails WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Man, this AfD is a total mess.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 18:45, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR is not the point. its WP:BIO and wp bio he matchs 3 points like i said befor - and a single one would be enough.

and i repeat myself. more sources more notability then 30% of all wiki articles. by the way - someobdy said the YT channel got not enogh subscribers and views to say its popular. here you will find the yt chanel of the biggest swiss tv station. SFR. youtube.com/user/sfr/videos this the offical channel of the 2 biggest tv stations of switzerland SF1 SF2 Schweizer Fernsehen ! it got same count of subscribers with 1000 videos then he with 40. also his shows got a WAY MORE views then the videos SFR is uploading. sry to say but i dont hear arguments - i just hear - i dont like it - or it dosent match something WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. this is no argument - this is nothing. if you want to bring an argument you have to what in there it is not matching.. and also you have to explain why we got wp:bio specialy for this case and you comeing with something else? Adniim- (talk) 12:59, 29 September 2013 (UTC) )


 * It has already been pointed out to you that you have totally misunderstood, or are intentionally misrepresenting, WP:BIO, so stop. Thomas.W   talk to me  13:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * ah you are the guy who is trying everything to ban me, friend of the 1 edit account, saw your conversation with him on your talk page, tryed to do sock puppet investigation and searching hard to find a way to ban me and did made it. welcome back. you are also the guy who showed perfect you did not read wp bio and i had to help you with that. then you ran out of arguments and tryed the sock puppet investigation.

and again - no arguments. at all - your argument is - you dont want the article - ready :) i gave 10 good reasons why its notable - and you just talking around and coming up with stuff like. "its no popularity challenge".  you have to STOP my friend - Adniim- (talk) 13:10, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * No, you haven't given a single good reason for why Michel von Tell is notable enough to have an article on the English Wikipedia, just like you haven't provided a single reliable third-party source in the article. Which is why the article has been nominated for deletion, and why this slightly chaotic "discussion" is taking place. Thomas.W   talk to me  13:24, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * i gave 10 - and you only TRYED to undo ONE of them - and eaven this did not work -

I brought argument - larg fan base - and you answered this with - THIS IS NO POPULARTY CONTEST HERE - = NO ARGUMENT- then i showed you - WP. BIO says EXACTLY THIS! SO IT IS A ARGUMENT - if you like it or not is not the question? we got a clear rule!! this rule says if it got a popularyty - a fan base - then JUST THIS is good enought  to be in wikipedia. ready - no discussion - no interpretation nothing - if you like it or not. you cant write the rules yourself. they are still here and you got to accept them. SO STOP IT - ok lets be nice - we try it another way. proof us you are not personal motivated, constructive and fair! you asked me for one 3rd party source! if i show you a 3rd party source, do you change your vote and you say - YES LETS KEEP THIS NICE ARTICLE? Yes or no? Or you then quick ignore this again and searching for next thing? Adniim- (talk) 13:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Per guidelines not a notable person in the spirit of wikipedia, and I agree with Taylor Trescott this AfD is a total mess and jumbled arguments and attacks... what happened to civilized conduct. I have edited it (wiki markup only) to assist with the fluidness and understanding. Regards Zoo  Pro  15:27, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - No coverage in reliable sources regardless of the walls of text being put up to support inclusion. -- Whpq (talk) 20:48, 1 October 2013 (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.