Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reuben Glaser


 * 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. Clear consensus is that the "Kurt 4 Klerk" incident comes under WP:ONEVENT, and that notability apart from that incident has not been established. JohnCD (talk) 14:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Reuben Glaser

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable local blogger, with only slight WP:BLP1E for the county clerk stunt. 7 23:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - See, I don't really see how that argument can stand. You say he's "non-notable," but I don't understand your reasoning. There are ample sources to back up that he is indeed relevant. If this is based on you as an individual not being familiar with him, that isn't exactly a legitimate basis.

Look - I live in Wisconsin and I know this incident was on more than one newspaper front-page more than once. Then he even made it to national publications.

In addition, you write him off as a "local blogger," which isn't even accurate. He is a filmmaker if anything, with sources to back that up too. Where on this page does it even say besides that he is on twitter that he blogs? You didn't do your homework very well. You just posted one discouraging sentence about it in order to justify the whole argument.

Maybe if you lived in Wisconsin and actually understood this, you'd change your tune.

--Funkychunkybeans (talk) 04:14, 18 January 2012 (UTC) — Funkychunkybeans (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Commment If you have ample sources to back up your claims that he's notable, you must show them or add them to the article. Be aware that pages to store sites such as amazon do not count towards notability, nor do links to blogs unless they're written by someone who is considered to be an absolute authority. (Very few people meet these guidelines unless they are considered Wikipedia notable, mind you.) Also, be aware that primary sources cannot be used unless there are multiple independent secondary sources to back them up. IMDb links cannot be used as sources either, unfortunately. Finally, just like blogs, everything else that is used as a source MUST be by a reliable person or group. Just because a blog or podcast mentioned or interviewed him doesn't mean that it gives him notability per Wikipedia guidelines. I would also like to direct you to WP:ONEEVENT, which shows that having one well publicized event does not always give notability. I would also like to ask that you refrain from being hostile or mean, as that is absolutely not necessary. The argument posed by the nominator is a good one and one that's actually pretty descriptive of the situation. I'm going to look into sources while Wikipedia is down, but I'm thinking that this is a non-notable blogger who is only notable for one event that doesn't have any lasting notability per Wikipedia guidelines. I would also like to say that since you're taking this very personally, if you know the blogger or are the blogger himself, please look over our conflict of interest section. (WP:COI) You can still edit and contribute to deletion discussions with a COI, but it's not recommended since you have a bias that will keep you from seeing things in a neutral manner.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:40, 18 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 18 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. I did a search and the results were pretty quick and defining. Glaser's only real claim to fame is that he was one of the people behind a teenager running for a public officer. He wasn't the person who was actually running and the incident isn't one of lasting notability as far as Wikipedia goes. Of the sources in the article, none of them are what WP:RS would consider to be reliable sources showing notability for Glaser, especially when the ones about the public office incident don't even mention Glaser and are non-usable. The other sources are either brief mentions, primary sources, or local mentions that don't show how Glaser is notable. This is just pure puffery here.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:49, 18 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 * Comment I removed all of the links that weren't about Glaser at all, but left the podcast up since those would actually have to be listened to. Right now the only sources that remain are a local radio show. I did remove a link to a high school paper review of Glaser doing a play, which again- isn't a notable source. High school performances aren't considered notable per Wikipedia standards. This might actually be speedy-able.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:55, 18 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79


 * Comment Hi, StupidDumbGnome here. I'd first like to say I am shocked at what has happened to this page when I logged on since I last saw it. I didn't think this would be such a source of controversy. I'd like to make it clear that I am just a fan of Reuben Glaser's who discovered him through the Kurt 4 Klerk incident, and nothing more. I don't believe that tag saying I have a close connection with him is very appropriate. Also, I don't know who "FunkyBeans" is, so I would hope that their contributions to this debate doesn't jeopardize it's fate.

Secondly, I am somewhat astounded to see you have deleted all my sources, and claimed many false things such as that Glaser isn't even mentioned in some of them. I find it irresponsible that you'd delete all but one, and claim that the only one remaining is a "podcast." It is not a podcast, it is actually one of Milwaukee's most popular radio shows by Charlie Sykes, which I am also shocked about to see he doesn't have a Wikipedia page either. You could plainly see this if you researched a little deeper. I say this not as somebody closely connected to my subject but as somebody who wrote their first article and perceives your lack of tact just a slight bit unprofessional. Please don't consider this "hostility" like you did with the commenter above either. I just wrote my opinion as eloquently as I could.

To continue, MediaIte, a nationally read news source, was a link I can't understand you removing, as well as the Huffington Post link, which directed the reader to an article further discussing Reuben Glaser's involvement.

I can agree with the deletion of some sources and understand you saying they aren't notable, but to see you delete 19 is surprising to say the least.

And of course, you say the Kurt 4 Klerk incident isn't one of lasting notability as far as Wikipedia goes." This statement, I believe, is subjective. If nothing else,this page should present a snapshot of these very important times in Wisconsin at least politically, and if being mentioned in Wisconsin's most read newspaper and being featured on the front-page of many more and being the top story on one of this state's most watched news programs as a top story (which is where I discovered Reuben Glaser) doesn't meet your requirements for notability, I don't know what would. All I know is that in the week this was happening, people would have thought Glaser and Kurt Heins were almost celebrities, there was such a media saturation of this.--StupidDumbGnome (talk) 05:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. The amount of media saturation means nothing. It's one event and you have to prove that it has lasting notability beyond the event. From what I can see, there was a brief flurry of news articles and they stopped shortly afterwards. I really think that you should read through WP:ONEEVENT. Just because an event got in the news does not make it notable per Wikipedia guidelines. For example, recently we had an article about a police parody cartoon called "Mr Fiddlesticks" that resulted in cyberstalking, harassment, and an officer having to resign from their job. It got about the same amount of media coverage, if not more so because the officials were accused of an extreme abuse of power. It's an event that has more notability than a teenager putting in a joke bid for a political office, but under Wikipedia guidelines it didn't have the lasting notability needed for a Wikipedia article. As for the articles I deleted, many of them were unusable as reliable sources per WP:RS. Some of the ones I deleted were things like primary sources (Glaser's blog, his youtube videos), links to sale sites like amazon, links to forums and mentions of performances, links to IMDb (completely unusable as a source), and general sites that can't be considered to be reliable sources. For example, Glaser's high school newspaper might work very hard but generally high school papers cannot be used as sources to show notability as far as Wikipedia goes. College newspapers are sometimes usable, but high school papers are not unless it's something so notable that you have several other sources to back up the claims in the paper. A review of a high school play is not really something that big papers would cover or would need to. As far as the other sources go, I went through them with a page search and Glaser's name didn't come up. As for the MediaIt page, that came up as "nothing found". It's a dead link. The Huffington Post link was just a picture of Heins, which can't be used as a reliable source. . What I did find on the internet via a gsearch only brought up extremely brief mentions of Glaser as far as the Heins incident goes. Brief mentions in papers cannot be used as sources to show notability. Glaser is just not a notable person as far as WP:BIO or WP:GNG goes.

As far as sources go, I'll go through them one by one and show you why I deleted them:
 * 1) Non-notable local paper. At the very most this could potentially be used as a trivial source, but a non-notable local paper article isn't enough to show that this is enough to give notability. I restored this one to be nice, but I want to stress that this does not give the notability needed to pass WP:BIO.
 * 2) This is Glaser's blog. It's a primary source and unless you have several independent notable secondary sources to back up the claims here, you can't use primary sources.
 * 3) This is a local radio podcast. Even if it's a big station in the area, this is still local coverage and generally speaking, local coverage is rarely enough to pass notability guidelines. The only reason I didn't delete this one outright was because I didn't have the time to listen to it since I have college to focus on, so I gave it the benefit of the doubt.
 * 4) High school paper review of a play. Doesn't show notability.
 * 5) This is an IMDb page. Since anyone can go onto IMDb and upload a page, this can't be used as a source. (See External links/Perennial websites) Even if Glaser himself didn't upload this, starring in or directing a movie does not give you automatic notability. You need multiple secondary and reliable sources to show that the acting or directing is notable.
 * 6) This is one of several amazon links peppered throughout the article. Links to products cannot be used as a reliable source as they merely prove that the item exists, not that it's notable.
 * 7) This is one of many links in the article that go to videos that Glaser himself uploaded to youtube. It's a primary source, so it can't be used unless there are multiple reliable secondary sources independent of Glaser that back the claims in this video up.
 * 8) This is just a photo of a couple of students of the month in the local paper. This doesn't show notability in the slightest.
 * 9) This is just an event calendar. Notices of performances or upcoming dates do not count towards notability.
 * 10) Non notable blog. A blog is only usable as a source unless it comes from someone who is considered to be an absolute authority on the subject, which generally means that this person is so notable that they themselves would have an entry. For example, if the chief editor of the Huffington Post blogged about Glaser, it could be used as a source. If I blogged about it, it can't be used.
 * 11) No mention of Glaser, can't be used as a source to show that he's notable since he's not even mentioned.
 * 12) Facebook cannot be used as a source at all.
 * 13) Dead link. Even if it wasn't, you'd still have to show that Glaser gets a lot of mention in this video. As said above, brief mentions do not count towards notability.
 * 14) Dead link.
 * 15) Does not mention Glaser, cannot be used as a source showing he's notable.
 * 16) This is just a brief mention and a redirect to the local paper. Cannot be used as a source.

Even with the scant articles that mention Glaser's contribution to the prank, there's not enough here to show that this has any lasting notability. It's not even notable enough to mention on any of the other pages either. I can't help but feel that you are someone who is closely involved with Glaser (or are Glaser himself), so you're looking at this with a big conflict of interest, causing you to see lasting notability and importance where there is none. None of us are doing this to be mean or nasty, Glaser just plain doesn't meet the strict notability guidelines for an article on Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79


 * Comment. Again, I don't know Glaser beyond being a fan and living relatively close to him and I'd appreciate it if you'd stop accusing me of that and possibly remove the tag at the top of the page that is just merely heresy. Also, thanks for restoring one of the links, but saying you did so just to be nice is exceedingly condescending and I don't appreciate being chastised as such. With that aside, I want you to understand that I recognize why you consider some of the articles and links not relevant or legitimate, and I'm not protesting that. A high-school newspaper isn't notable. This I will accept.

However, you still are getting some facts incorrect. You keep repeatedly calling the radio show a podcast, which is it not. And as much as I commend you for concentrating on college, if Wikipedia is such a distraction enough for you to use it as an excuse, perhaps you ought to hand this over to somebody else who will actually listen to the audio to establish that it isn't just a podcast.

Also, the two links you say are dead happen to be the most credible, so I will post them right here again so you can look at them and tell me they aren't pertinent.

This one is decidedly an active link with a viewable video of the story that was featured as headline news on an edition of this program - http://www.wisn.com/news/29576642/detail.html Again, to reiterate, WISN 12 is one of the most viewed programs in all of Southeastern Wisconsin and the entire Milwaukee area. Here is a second link to the same video, lest the previous link be considered dead - http://www.wisn.com/video/29576301/detail.html

Here is the MediaIte link that features Reuben Glaser heavily - http://www.mediaite.com/online/meet-kurt-heins-the-17-year-old-high-schooler-running-for-county-clerk-as-a-prank-or-not/ If the link is still dead, go to Mediaite.com and search Reuben Glaser. It should be the first result.

I also did some more digging as a cushion and scraped up references on the DailyKos - http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/06/12/875377/-John-Boehner-Claims-The-GOPs-Not-Just-Going-To-Be-The-Party-Of-No#comments - and references to a video specially made in opposition to John Boehner - http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/search?q=Reubnick

And here is the source of the Menominee Falls newspaper that works in tandem with The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel - http://www.menomoneefallsnow.com/news/prankster-behind-teens-bid-for-county-office-steps-forward-132670738.html

I understand your gripe, but I feel if you really give these links a consideration you will find that this page, although barely, is still notable, and you won't have to delete my page after all this work I've put into it. Thanks--StupidDumbGnome (talk) 18:50, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. The reason I keep referring to it as a podcast is because on the site's page it's filed under "Home > Podcasts > Opinion/talk > Charlie Sykes". Even if it was originally broadcast live on the radio, it can still be referred to as a podcast if the station were to upload the broadcast onto the web and make it available for subscription or download. The term "podcast" can be used pretty loosely and doesn't have to only apply to shows that are only heard via the podcast download. Radio shows can be uploaded into podcast format too, as can audio books and anything else that was previously recorded or broadcast in other formats. At one point it did refer exclusively to media that was only released via podcast, but the term has become very loose since then. Now moving on, the only problem with these links is that they mainly focus on Hines, not Glaser. I'm also a little confused where the DailyKos came from- the site doesn't refer to Glaser or Hines at all and I never saw anything on the article that came from or mentioned this site. Even if the blog did mention Hines or Glaser (which it didn't, I did a search) or Glaser contributed to them, that doesn't automatically make him notable enough for his own article. You need to explain how the DailyKos reference is notable. If you're trying to say that he's one of the people that writes for the site, you need to specify which writer he is, what he's written for the site, and then link to those specific articles. This site is only a blog and it doesn't appear to be by a person that Wikipedia would consider a reliable or notable authority. (Please read WP:BLOG.) Even with the other sites (including the radio show), the fact remains that the Hines incident is not something that has enough notability to be included on Wikipedia.  It's one event that got a limited amount of press and doesn't show enough notability for Glaser to have an article. To put it bluntly, it's a short-lived prank by a couple of high school kids that only received a few days of media attention before it was quickly forgotten. This got maybe, maybe a dozen news stories about it that seem to all have been released at the end of October. The event just isn't notable. I really, really feel that you're seeing notability where there isn't any because you are likely involved with or are Glaser himself. It's not against the rules to write about yourself or someone you know, but it increases the likelihood that you won't approach it in a neutral manner and will give greater importance to things than they actually have. (If you aren't then I apologize, but because this event had such limited scope and you've written about things that weren't in the few news stories about the prank, I'm assuming that you are Glaser or someone who knows him. If you are, then it's probably a good idea to say what your relation is. It's not required but it's a good idea because not being honest about it can look pretty bad if/when others discover it.) Other than the Hines prank, there is no other coverage of Glaser that's considered to be reliable per WP:RS and the Hines prank does not pass WP:GNG or WP:EVENT. Even if the Hines prank were to pass these guidelines, Glaser is not notable outside of this event and does not merit an article to himself. (But again, the prank itself does not merit an article either since it only got about 3-4 days of water cooler discussion type articles.) Very few news events, let alone news events that really only get local attention, are considered notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. (See WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:BLP1E.) In the end the fact remains that the Hines prank is not considered to have lasting notability per WP:EVENT or WP:GNG and Glaser does not have enough notability outside of the prank to be notable in and of himself.

You're just not seeing this per Wikipedia's notability guidelines. You're seeing it by your own guidelines, which unfortunately do not mesh with the very strict and stringent guidelines that Wikipedia has. I would really recommend that you brush up on the basics (WP:RS, WP:ONEEVENT, WP:BIO, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, WP:GNG, WP:COI and WP:PUFF). I'm not trying to be difficult or mean, you've just got to understand that there's nothing in this article that has lasting notability to show that Glaser would merit an article. Maybe one day he will have this notability and can laugh about this on the Today Show, but right now he doesn't have the notability nor does the single event he was involved with. Even without listening to the radio show I can confirm this. It's nice that you want to save the page, but there just isn't anything to show that the event had any lasting notability. The only places that really covered it were local news stations and one brief mention by the Huff Post that linked to a local article. It's just not enough to show that this had any lasting notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79


 * Delete - insufficient evidence of notability whether in the article or on the web. Signs of local campaigning with SPA/SPI activity similarly fail to establish notability. Claims in article themselves mainly trivia and in any case largely unsubstantiated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. The single prank is not one that is of lasting note. -- Whpq (talk) 21:00, 23 January 2012 (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.