Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seph Lawless


 * 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 no consensus and pretty close to keep. The case is complicated. It is possible that paid editing was involved. The nominator claims the subject of the articles issued threats against them. We have an enormously large number of new accounts voting, all or most of them voting delete and giving some rationale (mainly that the subject did not do anything notable, and there are many other photographers of similar notability and without articles). I ignored all this, though I strongly urge the nominator to contact the Wikimedia legal about the threats. I am not a fan of paid editing, but what we need to investigate is notability. Let us go to the real arguments. The books presumably do not have ISBN and are not found in the libraries (I did not check it personally, but DGG is a librarian, and I fully trust him). Thus, we are only discussing coverage and whether he passes WP:GNG. This is exactly where we have a problem. Some good coverage exists (the Guardian, Slate, Fox News, CNN, Vanity Fair is mentioned in one of the links), even if we ignore the Daily News. There is also an exhibition in a respectable institution in Munich. On the other hand, there are some reasons to believe that this is all or almost all coverage which exists. This is the point where the discussion participants do not agree: Whether the coverage as presented is sufficient. There are not only new accounts, but also some established users on both sides, without great numerical advantage (certainly more keeps), and this is I why close the discussion as no consensus.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Seph Lawless

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )


 * Delete: Non notable live figure. An urban explorer with no credentials does not need a Wikipedia page, much like every other explorer. No notable books (with reliable ISBN numbers), other publications and experience. seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  13:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Removed publication list earlier. No working ISBN numbers for any of them. They seem to be self published and not through the non-existent publishing house that was listed originally. seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  13:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I provided the ISBN numbers below. Worldcat is usually pretty good about providing those, and when they aren't available (such as with older books) they'll always have an OCLC number you can use instead.  Given that notability is established here via WP:GNG, we don't need to parse WP:AUTHOR.  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 01:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * After receiving numerous legal and personal threats from Seph Lawless, I have copied Oversight on those communications. Additionally, it seemed that the page was created by User:Bernie44, long outed as a paid editor. Per the communications sent to Oversight, it can be verified. seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  17:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: Struck duplicate !vote; the nomination is considered your delete !vote. See WP:AFDLIST. Softlavender (talk) 20:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete: Non notable live figure. There are many urban explorers, and he does not stand out from the crowd. Books appear to be self-published/not with a major or minor publishing house, or available on Amazon. TV appearances do not denote notable status, as many people have been interviewed on TV and are not on Wikipedia. Claims are largely self-referential at their source and unverifiable. Agree article should be deleted. Jacobssteph (talk) 16:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC) — Jacobssteph (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Jacobssteph (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.


 * Keep. I am the creator of the article in question, so obviously I feel Lawless is notable in the field of photography. He has been profiled and his work discussed and displayed in respected media, including Slate, CNN, Weather Channel, Fox News, The Guardian, Fast Company and ABC News. User:Seicer has removed much of the information and good sources from the article, following destructive, unsourced edits from various IP addresses (until it was protected by another user). A user named Josephlawless then made destructive edits, the only edits the user ever made. And the one other commenter on this AFD is a user named Jacobssteph, who has done nothing on Wikipedia other than comment on this AFD here and on the corresponding AFD log. Lawless's Wikipedia page has been the subject of destructive activity for about six months now. This AFD is simply the latest. --Bernie44 (talk) 03:29, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Can you disclose your involvement with Seph Lawless in regards to the paid editing you provided for him? seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  04:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * All I did was create Lawless's Wikipedia entry, based on the strong press that's out there, i.e. what I listed above and interviews like this one in American Photo magazine, which to me indicate notability. If you want to say that Lawless is not actually notable, despite his work being covered in Slate, Fast Company, The Guardian, CNN, etc., fine, but it sounds like some sort of personal bias, and I would think it makes more sense to give weight to major media outlets like these over Seicer and a few users who have done nothing other than destructively edit Lawless's Wikipedia page, which is the reason User:FreeRangeFrog protected the page in the first place.--Bernie44 (talk) 16:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you disclose your involvement with the New York Daily News, and your involvement with paid Wikipedia editing, specifically with My Wiki Pro? Were you paid to write for Seph Lawless, as he claimed? And if so, do you believe it is a conflict of interest to cite your own newspaper clippings (possibly your own article) as citations? seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  21:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Any involvement I've had with paid editing has already been disclosed on my user talk page. What bearing does that have on whether or not Lawless is notable? As for any involvement with the New York Daily News, I've never been involved with the paper in any capacity. This whole AFD feels like one person basically claiming without any viable sources that what's been written in a bunch of articles in major publications is meaningless.--Bernie44 (talk) 22:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Paid_editing_(essay) is pretty explicit in saying that "Paid editing is generally frowned upon in the community. It creates an air of distrust and fear of an editor who will do anything to prevent the article being reverted to its original state, or being deleted by AfD to protect their agreed payment", which is exactly what it looks like is going on here. He paid you to put it up (which you still keep dodging the questions about) and you have a vested interest in maintaining the page. Redirecting the conversation to "Right, but he's still notable" doesn't mean we should discount that the MAIN person that put up the page and is fighting to keep it just happens to be the person paid to do so. I also see that "It has, however, been made by consensus that editors who are paid represent a clear conflict-of-interest and are strongly encouraged to state this on the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard what articles they are being paid to edit and declare whom they are working for before doing so. Failure to do so may result in disputes with established editors and the Wikipedia community," however, I don't see any comment from you on the COIN board saying that Joseph Melendez (aka Seph Lawless) has paid you to put up this information. WikiCommenter1 (talk) 22:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC) WikiCommenter1

I'll be happy to provide information, including my identification and copies of the threats if need be, to OTRS. Joe Melendez/Seph Lawless has made personal and financial threats against friends and family as retaliation, which is why this account was created. Jacobssteph (talk) 04:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep: Whether or not this article was initially created under questionable circumstances (see above), the subject is nevertheless a very notable "outlaw" photographer of urban decay covered by many high-profile media. Here is the last version of the article prior to trimmings referred to by Bernie44. Pax 04:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  05:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  05:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  05:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  05:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Question. While this article has been subjected to bizarre edits in the past (example) and may need semipermanent s-protection, currently it appears to be a modest article making modest, sourced claims. The charge above is that he's non-notable; does this mean not notable-as-the-term-is-normally-understood, or not Wikipedia-notable? (His books don't appear to be notable, but this has nothing to do with their lack of ISBNs.) -- Hoary (talk) 05:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I was going for Wikipedia-notable. Minus his non-existent mass-published books, he's only got a handful of interviews, and there are plenty of others who are much more notable in that respect that we simply deny or delete (seen plenty myself over the years). Most of the sources removed were questionable - they relied strictly or heavily on interviews of the individual, rather than any formality or basic research. Additionally, one of the primary sources listed is from the New York Daily News, usually not an issue except that one of the paid editors Seph hired to craft the article is an author at the newspaper. That's a huge conflict of interest, and while it can be accepted - there is little else to base notability on. seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  21:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete: There are hundreds of so called urban explorers. Should Wikipedia be a repository for each and every one of them? Seph Lawless holds no notability merely because he published a few books on his own and has been mentioned in a few blogs. I've been mentioned in blogs yet I don't hold a Wikipedia entry. Seph's facts are largely uncredible and appear to be exaggerated including: his statement of being arrested over 50 times for trespassing, being arrested upon leaving the shopping mall which he photographed and that he has even been compared to "Banksy" as a sellout. There is no reference to such a comparison anywhere on the internet, and appears to be wishful thinking. Furthermore Seph's personal "verified" Facebook page contained a link to a page titled "The Urbex Memester" in which Seph appears in a video claiming to be "The King of Urbex" and mocks other explorers. The page also includes photographs of other explorers along with defamatory comments aimed at them. It seems anyone who opposes the opinion that this person is somehow a "king" of exploring ends up the target of harassment. However all that aside and keeping to the Wikipedia standards, the wiki entry says nothing more than "this person took pictures of abandoned places". There is nothing notable in way of the subject that was photographed, the author lacks notable sources (blogs with scripted like interviews do not provide such) and finally it appears to be largely self-promotion.Roadbound (talk) 06:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC) — Roadbound (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Well, to have been arrested 50 times in (I infer) a short time could, it were verifiably true, suggest a noteworthy degree of incompetence (cf Eddie the Eagle). &para; There are hundreds of so called urban explorers. Should Wikipedia be a repository for each and every one of them? No. But I know next to nothing about this area, so please educate me. Certainly a lot of people are doing this kind of thing; see here for example. And I know there are entire (and interesting) subgenres of exploring abandoned metropolitan subway/underground stations and not-yet-opened skyscrapers. But the only name I know is RomanyWG (currently redlinked); could you (or somebody) come up with a list of three to five notable urban explorers? Then we ignoramuses would be better able to compare the claims made for this fellow. &para; Seph's facts are largely uncredible There's this matter, too. &para; it appears to be largely self-promotion Yes, the talk page of its creator is rather interesting, as is mywikipro dot com. -- Hoary (talk) 07:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * (Forgive my lack of formatting, I'm not sure how this works) If he had been arrested more than 50 times... "if" being the operative word. There is no evidence other than his self-referential claims to support it, as with many or most of his biographical details. Most of his charges are driving related offences, and the only other 2 notable ones were petty theft and one trespassing (for which he plead out). Any arguable notableness he might enjoy (and I would say he has none) is entirely self-manufactured, including this very wiki article. To the question of other notable explorers, I would say Steve Duncan, Bradley Garrett and Ninjalicious (all of whom are actually notable and have wiki entries) are notable. The first two have explored extensively, in multi-continents, have had tv programs made about them, have published scholarly papers and articles, and have explored places that no one else has. Ninjalicious arguably did more in his short life to advance the idea of exploring and inspired directly or indirectly many of the explorers in the hobby today. An example of explorers who do not have a wiki entry (that I could find) but are notable are the group known as the Brescia Underground in Italy. They have found lost rivers and bridges, were the subject of documentaries. An example of explorers who arguably have more notableness than Seph are the people in the tv series PhotoXplorers (though, they are also not notable enough to have a wiki entry I submit), a multi-part documentary series that aired in dozens of countries on 5 continents. Seph Lawless has been to 2 malls, the outside of some houses and the same old tired Detroit ruins that anyone can visit. His online popularity was manufactured by purchasing likes and clicks from overseas companies. Seph Lawless is a fiction entirely created for Joe Melendez's spurious business model. Because of this recommendation for deletion, his campaign against those who he thinks are behind it have stepped up. This wiki article is central to his business model and he feels it is under threat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobssteph (talk • contribs) 14:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've done the reformatting for you. Thank you for the response. (But look, you sound as keen to deflate Lawless's reputation as [you allege] he is keen to inflate it. You risk coming off as somewhat obsessed. Remember that we're assessing the article and its potential, not the subject.) So, Steve Duncan, Bradley Garrett and Ninjalicious (among others). All three do indeed have more press coverage, which gives me a sense of perspective. (I'd say more, but I'm having too much fun reading Ninjalicious's informative and entertaining guide "Taking the plunge".) -- Hoary (talk) 15:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the formatting. I admit that given his threats against me and people I know by him, I may cross the line into taking this personally. I hope that I'm at least providing you with some good context as to why he is not notable, in the absolute and in the relative sense.


 * Keep&mdash;BLP with significant coverage in reliable sources. To answer the question above, yes, we will provide space for articles for any number of urban explorers whose work has been featured in Slate, Fox News and the Guardian.  See WP:GNG for details on our criteria.  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 19:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC)  For whatever it's worth, the ISBNs for Autopsy of America : the journal entries of Seph Lawless are 9780615875781 and 0615875785 (Artivist Press, 2014), and the ISBNs for Black friday : the collapse of the american shopping mall are [0615875785 and 9780615875781] (Activist [sic] Press, 2014).   The books appear to be self-published.  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 20:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the "For whatever it's worth". But for the benefit of other interested readers: ISBNs are useful for books. If we mention a book that has an ISBN, we should give the ISBN. However, ISBNs confer no status whatever. Here's an almost ISBN-free list of recent books that have won critical attention; here's a list of negligible publications with ISBNs. -- Hoary (talk) 01:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep I agree his books are not notable, but he and his work have been prominently featured on CNN Money and The Guardian, among several other prominent news sources. Not just in their blogs, either.  Meets WP:GNG.    78.26   (spin me / revolutions) 22:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * comment I'm seeing a lot of WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST here. There is no doubt that Lawless is less important than other photographers who do not have an article, that isn't what is up for debate here.  (although if articles on these photographers are created, then this debate has proven positive effects!)  The question is, is Lawless notable?  The geographic breadth of coverage and variety of dates where he is covered indicate that he is more than WP:NEWS.  How he became notable, through self-promotion or otherwise, is irrelevant, if he meets the general notability guidelines.    78.26   (spin me / revolutions) 15:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete: Non notable live figure. He paid to have this article created, and beyond his word there is no evidence to back up many of his claims. Hardwired 00:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardwired50 (talk • contribs)  — Hardwired50 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Hardwired50 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.
 * Strong Delete: Non notable live figure. The only people that put up and modified this page in a positive manner are a reporter paid by the subject, and the subject himself. His claims are linked to sources where the subject himself is making exaggerated claims (aka lies). If I said I could fly in an interview, I can't pay someone to cite that source on wikipedia as a notable person that has the ability to fly. There are dozens, if not hundreds of more notable explorers with television and interview credits that aren't considered notable either. At the very best, this subject is a one sentence mention on the urban explorer page, if even that. The books are self published, with no sales figures, and no verifiable articles where legitimate sales figures are given in order to establish the books being noteworthy - I can self publish a book on the same sites, again, does that make me a noteworthy individual? This Wikipedia page is being used as a paid SEO and marketing tool to sell self published books, bottom line, and that isn't what this site is for. WikiCommenter1 (talk) 00:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC) WikiCommenter1 — WikiCommenter1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  Note: An editor has expressed a concern that WikiCommenter1 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.
 * Strong Delete: The article as it currently is lacks notability. Owning a camera, seeing abandoned buildings, and talking to the media sometimes could describe half the population of some major cities at this point. Junganghansik (talk) 01:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Junganghansik (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.
 * Can you give me some names of photographers with similar international coverage that don't have articles? I'd be happy to start writing a few stubs.  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 01:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not Junganghansik, but . . . I hardly know where to start. OK, Gianni Berengo Gardin, Toni Catany, Thurston Hopkins, Klavdij Sluban, Bryn Campbell, Cas Oorthuys, Alixandra Fazzina, Bieke Depoorter, Dominic Nahr, Jérôme Sessini, Miguel Rio Branco, Kryn Taconis, I. K. Inha, Simon Wheatley, Dougie Wallace, Patrick Zachmann, John Vink, Peter van Agtmael, Paolo Woods, Christoph Bangert, Ferdinando Scianna. Want more? -- Hoary (talk) 02:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC) PS please don't create mere stubs on any of these people. A stub demands attention from other editors, and there are very few here who deal seriously with non-self-promoting photographers. So instead of "a few stubs", just one decent start, please. (The kind of thing that you might charge $300 for, if you were charging; but like me and most but not all of the people commenting here, you're not.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think most urban explorers would appreciate a Wikipedia page, other than a handful of attention whores. Most of us really don't like our real names being thrown around due to legal and privacy concerns. But if you really want, you can look up some of the urban exploring groups on Flickr and start from there. The largest I could find has over 10 000 members. Junganghansik (talk) 02:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, this bloke doesn't seem to like his real name being thrown around (though he's surprisingly willing to show his face). And Banksy (who's hugely more notable, of course) has an article with no real name. (Thinking of anonyms, WP doesn't even have an article on Slinkachu. Amazing.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If primary sources were accepted, one can easily make the connection based on a mugshot. And for someone who doesn't want the attention of the police, he's sure willing to taunt them. They can surely make the connection. As far as other photographers - does it need to be limited to those with international coverage? There are plenty of notable folks who are more domestic that could stand a page, if we are using Seph's page as a benchmark. I would be willing to flesh out the basics of those pages. seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  04:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I mentioned international coverage because that (in my mind) makes notability uncontroversial. And has Hoary has pointed out, our coverage of non-English-speaking photographers is frankly embarrassing.  Hoary knows far more about this topic than I do.  I'll leave suggestions to hir.  Lesser Cartographies (talk)
 * I can get you one from Canada who has been on television and has been in more art shows than you can count! seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  04:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh geez. I found a good one. The first sentence. seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  05:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Good stuff, but any media coverage? I see that Sabrina Hill is the editor of SeoulFi, but beyond that I'm not seeing interviews, etc.  Can you give me a pointer to the WP:RS you found?  Thanks!  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 18:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * A big tip of the hat to Lopifalko for turning "Peter van Agtmael" from red to blue in the course of this somewhat protracted AfD. -- Hoary (talk) 08:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * STRONG KEEP: Only because any of the suggestions to delete this page is completely saturated by mentioning others that are more notable. They come off obsessed and have clearly attacked this photographer personally. Furthermore, (AND MUCH MORE DISTURBING) A quick google search gives us all the evidence we need. Seicer started this thread on a public forum and encouraged others to comment this post on wiki as well, which goes against wiki policy. After defaming and humiliating this photographer you can see who made the thread and then view his personal comments #75 and #77 boasting how he removed sourced information from his wiki-page then put this up for a speedy deletion. Not only should we keep this page but we should ban the ip address Seicer for poising wikipedia for all of us. Link of his Seicer's comments can be found here: http://www.uer.ca/forum_showthread.asp?fid=1&threadid=117450&currpage=4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.56.220.119 (talk) 03:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)  — 184.56.220.119 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Thank you for the link. Here's the "boast" that you refer to: All because I cleaned his Wiki page of overly promotional material written by a paid editor, and then listed the page up for deletion. Doesn't look like a boast to me, doesn't mention sourcing, nothing about a speedy deletion. And in particular, neither provides a link to this page nor encourages anybody else to participate on this page or anything like it. Despite this, you say: Seicer started this thread on a public forum and encouraged others to comment this post on wiki as well. That's not particularly easy to understand but seems to be saying that he (she?) encouraged people to come here. If this is what you mean, let's have a link to the incriminating post. -- Hoary (talk) 23:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Easily meets GNG with coverage as noted above. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Fifteen minutes of "Best Known For" style fame and self published works does not meet notability requirements for an encyclopedia. When he becomes Ansel Adams, then he will have earned it. ScrapIronIV (talk) 15:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * So he has to equal the most renowned landscape painter in history in order to merit an article? ...sometimes being a grandstanding, rule-ignoring, hellraiser flash-in-the-pan a-hole is all you need to do to be conferred notability by RS. Pax 02:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Landscape photographer, the last time I heard. Ahem: Can we please keep assholes (i) unbowdlerized but (ii) far away from this AfD? -- Hoary (talk) 07:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete Self publishing books, and paying a click farm for page likes means anyone with a fat enough wallet can be notable. This person is a blight on the urban exploration hobby which has far more notable people who have earned that spot, rather than bought it174.62.142.98 (talk) 05:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC) — 174.62.142.98 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 174.62.142.98 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.
 * Hi IP. Yes, anyone with a fat enough wallet can be notable in the wikipedia sense.  And we'd be happy to have articles on other explorers who have received similar levels of coverage in the mainstream media, which is how we determine notability in the wikipedia sense.  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 18:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. He's written up in the Guardian article, but NB the Guardian has a number of similar articles. Recent examples include: "Save the dinosaur: The rollercoaster story of East Berlin's forgotten theme park" (Ciarán Fahey); "Underground London: adventures in the secret city beneath our feet" (Bradley Garrett); "The Tour de Neglect: a cycle ride through Buffalo's deprived East Side" (David Torke); "Caofeidian, the Chinese eco-city that became a ghost town - in pictures" (Gilles Sabrie), etc. -- Hoary (talk) 07:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - In addition to the above sources which establish GNG, there is also Vanity Fair (Italian) and Business Insider and ABC News and The Telegraph and National Geographic (photo contest) and Vice (interview about trespassing) and Amerikahaus (Germany exhibit). Doesn't make any difference how he achieved notability, are secondary reliable sources covering him and his photography and books, it appears that they are. Isaidnoway (talk)  16:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, then that would also include several dozens to hundreds of other explorers in the scene around the world and would be a gigantic article, not what this is, paying someone to put up and edit a Wikipedia page for SEO, marketing, and vanity reasons. There is nothing notable actually mentioned in the article. Unless he died doing it, or found something newsworthy, he is doing the same thing in the same places as everyone in the exploring community. Any locations he has publicized already have photos from other people all over the Internet, most of which he sees first THEN goes there to copy. News coverage of him doing it is not noteworthy. If simply being in the news is validation for having a Wikipedia page, then myself and everyone on the news every day would have a page. WikiCommenter1 (talk) 19:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)Wikicommenter1
 * I'm afraid "news coverage of him doing it" is the very essence of notability as the term is used here. If we left the determination of notability up to people who know something about urban exploring, y'all would engage the kind of bickering we see above (nothing special about urban explorers; the communities of biologists and race car drivers would have similar difficulties coming to consensus).  So we short-circuit the process by defining notability as follows (eliding a bit of nuance):  if you're reported on in mainstream media, you get an article.  If not, you don't.  This may not coincide with whom you consider to be notable, but it does have the benefit of being objective and giving us ostensibly accurate information from which we can fashion an article.
 * By our definition, the subject of this article is obviously notable. That doesn't mean he's important, representative, ethical, or likable.  It just means that mainstream media has covered him enough that an article can be written about him.  Check out WP:GNG for details.  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 20:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And I quote, from the referenced WP:GNG "Self-promotion and indiscriminate publicity - Publication in a reliable source is not always good evidence of notability: Wikipedia is not a promotional medium. Self-promotion, paid material, autobiography, and product placement are not valid routes to an encyclopedia article. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter." Seph is ONLY initially on Wikipedia based on paying someone to write the articles here himself. He has been on TV ONLY based on his purchasing facebook likes, instagram likes, self-published fluff piece press releases, and self publishing books with no notable sales figures. Nothing notable has actually been done in his life that was independently recognized by the articles and news places that you are citing. HE contacted the news, not the other way around. Again, any one of us can do these exact things at any moment, being on the news or in an article alone doesn't make you a notable subject WikiCommenter1 (talk) 20:31, 9 January 2015 (UTC)WikiCommenter1
 * QUESTION You keep repeating the same thing after each time someone says 'Keep'. You also keep saying things you can't back up with facts. Your wiki user name has no other edits outside of this topic. Were you asked to come by the creator of this deletion page Seicer who is Sherman Cahal who also created a public post urging outsiders to come here and vandalize this page. This post here: https://www.facebook.com/TheUrbexMemester/photos/a.181014135345877.38957.181012418679382/697897720324180/?type=1&theater if so this page is for unbiased wiki writers. If you come here for unwarranted vandalism or for personal reasons then please refrain from commenting. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.56.220.119 (talk) 14:36, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * One of the no-noes in Wikipedia is revealing the real-world name of a fellow contributor (or claiming to do so), but before deleting the comment above I decided to click the link within it. In it, somebody reveals his own name, so there doesn't seem to be a problem there. 184.56.220.119, you are fantasizing. The page to which you link doesn't ask anyone to vandalize anything. At least one of the comments lower down is stereotypically Facebook-stupid, and could get its poster into trouble; but even this doesn't ask anyone to vandalize anything. -- Hoary (talk) 14:46, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Seicer has provided his real name before here on wiki, such as when he outlined the threats leveled against him by Seph Lawless wiki threat page. I don't see a problem with it staying here. Is it allowed to note that the IP address 184.56.220.119 is in Cleveland, coincidentally where Seph Lawless himself lives?Jacobssteph (talk) 16:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, apparently Seph (who for whatever reason we can't state his real name even though we all know it) is now joining the discussion, but won't reveal who he is because he and the creator of this page are really the only two people fighting to keep it. WikiCommenter1 (talk) 16:32, 10 January 2015 (UTC)WikiCommenter1
 * OK, that's an unfair characterization, WikiCommenter1. I would say the editors with a long and varied editing history are standing on their policy-based arguments, and don't feel the need to engage those who are taking positions of WP:IDONTLIKEIT (or WP:ILIKEIT for that matter) and WP:IDHT.   78.26   (spin me / revolutions) 01:33, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Hoary, they may have deleted comments after this but they were urging people to come here on a page if you look has several other posts that are related. A known bully public page on Facebook. You are correct I only name the person because he publicly admits this on two different blogs his name and his intentions. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.56.220.119 (talk) 15:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not aware of anyone's Wikipedia username or who they are, I'm participating in a discussion about deleting this page, which is up for any Wikipedia user to participate in. I am not sure how you consider discussing valid points to be "vandalizing" but your comment is baseless and reeks of more paid shill work that the page subject is known for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiCommenter1 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - I would like to point out two things: (1) The nominator of this AfD appears to have a similar interest in urban exploring/photography as evidenced by his Instagram account and other websites. User:seicer has also posted to a forum/board (screenshots available) where he admits he is a WP editor and has met Seph Lawless in real life (recently), so, could seicer clarify when he decided to clean his page of overly promotional material and nominate it for deletion, was it before or after you met him? (2) According to this source, Lawless had an exhibit at the Beachwood Library where he was photographed, if you click on that photo (it will enlarge), look to the right of the poster The Autopsy Of America, you will see his WP page (earlier version) on prominent display. I don't know if he regularly puts his WP page on display like that, but it kind of looks like an attempt to verify his "notability". Nothing wrong with that I guess, but he and other editor's should be aware that WP is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, so a WP article may change at any given moment, and possibly even be deleted. Isaidnoway (talk)  17:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I met Seph on January 6 of this year in Cleveland by accident (first and only time). It was shortly after that the very personal attacks came about from Seph's account that I had to seek legal advice here on WP:ANI; it has since been taken to email. It doesn't take much to equate this username to my real name. As for editing - I first edited the article back in September of 2014. I have had no involvement with Seph before that point and given I live six hours south, I continue to have limited involvement with him, despite our similar interests. On the other sites where I have posted, I mentioned that the article was up for deletion and that comments were welcomed - constructive on the article itself, not on his personal character. seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  18:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Sticking to the notability guidelines as I understand them, I think this page should stay. I'm focusing on the multiple references, some from very good sources. The references relate to his work (photography) and that's where the notability lies, not in his status as an explorer, a person with a pseudonym or anything else. On the subject of whether or not paid editing is involved or any other shenanigans, this appears to me to be a side alley that lies outside the remit of how we assess articles here. It's not the first debate I've seen take this tangent and the advice last time around from the closer was that issues over authorship/status of paid for articles be addressed at village pump and not used to determine whether an article stays or goes (see here ). I'd say the same recommendation applies here. Libby norman (talk) 19:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Non notable author. His two books are each in only two worldCat libraries. The notability of the photographs can be judged by the notability of the book where he published them. "Most interesting person" by a local magazine is not notability, but an attempt by the magazine to accommodate as much PR as possible.    DGG ( talk ) 16:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Regardless of this article's inception, as a photographer full articles on him in The Guardian, The Telegraph, The Daily News, Fast Company, ABC News, CNN Money, Slate, and Fox News (in addition to the other seven full local and national articles cited in the wiki article, and other national and international articles mentioned by other editors above on this page) more than meet WP:GNG, WP:BIO, and WP:ARTIST. Softlavender (talk) 07:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - Ambivalent about the notability of this person compared against subject-specific notability guidelines but, based on the sources quoted in several responses above, and also and, and that he has attracted attention from UK publications:  and ; I feel he meets the WP:GNG comfortably. Bellerophon  talk to me  18:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Considering the references in the article and those provided in the above discussion, there seems to be the appearance of notability, but not actual notability according to the general notability guideline. Some references lack depth of coverage: The Guardian quotes the subject, exhibits photos, but is largely about the decline of shopping malls. The Telegraph exhibits photos in a slideshow, but only has 2 sentences at the first slide announcing his book. ABC News just has a slideshow of photos. Some references are to primary source interviews like: Fox News and American photo mag. Some references are just routine coverage of an exhibition or book release like: cleveland.com, Weather.com, thought catalog, CNN Money, Slate, and Fast Company. Some references are just local coverage from sources with no particular reputation for fact-checking or accuracy like: cleveland scene and cleveland magazine. The only remaining references that may be suitable for notability purposes is from a source that employs the paid editor identified above: The Daily News. Examination of the references leads to the conclusion that the article does not meet WP:GNG, despite the appearance of reliable sources, and should be deleted.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  22:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * For the record, I don't understand where this idea that I work for the NY Daily News came from. Once again, I do not work for the Daily News and never have.--Bernie44 (talk) 22:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Question:: Becky Sayles The ABC NEWS story clearly quotes Seph Lawless twice in that segment. Please check the notable sources more closely before you comment. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.56.220.119 (talk) 23:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I count two sentences by SL. -- Hoary (talk) 23:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No, There is actually four sentences (A paragraph) Please use arrow to continue reading. I'm troubled by the amount of what seems to be biased comments here not based on factual information. Please only refer to factual accurate sourced information. Any attempt to diminish sourced material could be seen as an act of vandalism to this page, which clearly has suffered several according to the history logs. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.56.220.119 (talk) 23:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * (ec) Thank you, IP. There are indeed two quotations in the 121 words that go along with those photos.  Of those, the quotations themselves make up 40 words.  Characterizing the site as "just has a slideshow of photos" is, I'd argue, more imprecise than inaccurate.  There's certainly not much there on which we could hang an article.  (I'll note that while I disagree with Becky Sayles on whether this link is useful for notability, I do see where she's coming from and she has a fair point.  Your point, on the other hand, fails to address the substance of her objection.)  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 23:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's what I see: "I wanted Americans to see what was happening to their country from the comfort of their suburban homes and smart phones." "'most Americans never read a book after they graduate high school, so I came out with a photo book." What else am I missing? (Incidentally, I do hope that Becky Sayles comes by to respond to Bernie44's objection.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Regarding Bernie44 - I read and rely on the comment above from Seicer stating "Additionally, one of the primary sources listed is from the New York Daily News, usually not an issue except that one of the paid editors Seph hired to craft the article is an author at the newspaper. That's a huge conflict of interest, and while it can be accepted - there is little else to base notability on." I took this to mean that one of the multiple paid editors hired by the subject was employed by the New York Daily News.  Seicer may or may not have been referring to Bernie44. Additionally, Seicer has edited this AfD since Bernie44 stated having a lack of involvement with that source, and has yet to retract the statement.  Assuming good faith of both Bernie44 and Seicer, the statement refers to another paid editor, which still represents an issue with accepting that reference for the purpose of establishing notability.
 * As for the ABC Slideshow: I agree that there are two blocks of text that go along with the images. The first slide has text that states the source of the image (the subjects book) and provides information about the subject of the image.  The second slide has two quotes from the subject.  Feel free to disagree, but neither of these contribute to satisfying the general notability guideline.  The first block, like in many of the other sources, is equivalent to a trivial mention as it only serves to identify the source of the image.  The second block quotes the subject(primary source), and makes no attempt to cover him specifically.  It would better serve the notability of "declining American retail facilities" as a topic than it does the subject of this AfD.  This reference should further be rejected as it is largely content from the subject.  These slideshows provide little to no information about the subject, or minimally offer it in captions.  They are photographs selected for release by the subject, and done so for promotion of the book from which they come.  Characterizing the reference as just a slideshow, precisely and accurately reflects my sentiment towards its ability to establish notability under the guideline.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  01:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Question: You mentioned Fox News who had him as a television guest to interview Seph Lawless, but failed to mentioned the television interview on CNN, which is still online as part of the most recent CNN Money story. He's been on CNN four different times in 2014 an once already in 2015. A simple search shows that Seph Lawless's stories with the Guardian and Slate were recently named most popular stories for those magazines in 2014 just released a few weeks ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.194.229.110 (talk) 02:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Please do try to get your facts straight. The Guardian is a website or a six-days-per-week newspaper (with supplements that can be termed magazines), or both. The story is attributed to David Uberti (this person) and Lawless, and is described not as the most popular story but as the fourth most popular among "The top city stories of 2014". If such popularity means anything in an AfD (which I doubt), then it might be noted that this story comes behind another (with multiple photographers) about abandoned structures. (I didn't check any of your other claims.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Hoary, you seem to be having trouble navigating the ABC news article as many others have pointed out the other text you don't seem to be able to see. Also, you ignored the CNN comments and CNN television interview of Seph Lawless that's attached to even the latest CNN news story about Seph Lawless and the Slate comment. You mentioned the Guardian is a website but it's a known Newspaper first and foremost. The original story was printed in the Guardian Newspaper about shopping malls centers entirely around the work of Seph Lawless and he is quoted through out the story from top to bottom with every image used being the work of Seph Lawless. Lawless took the Guardian Newspaper inside an abandoned shopping mall which was the main source of the story.You claim it's the #4 story but they are not listed in any particular order as well. The fact both of these stories were among it's top news stories in 2014 is rather significant. Please read these articles very closely before assuming and commenting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.56.220.119 (talk) 08:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Not only did I ignore the CNN material, I made this explicit: "I didn't check any of your other claims". (The reason why I didn't is that time is limited and I thought I'd spent enough of mine on the Guardian reference.) You called the Guardian a magazine, I pointed out that it was a website and newspaper; now you're telling me that it's a newspaper: yes, I already know this. Maybe we are looking at grossly different versions of the Guardian's website: on the version that I'm looking at (via a computer), I read: Note the "4" at the start: this means number four (of a "countdown"). And not number four news story (which would be here), but instead number four among "city stories". I hope that I am making myself sufficiently clear. Incidentally, when you comment here, please end your comments with four consecutive taps on the "~" key. -- Hoary (talk) 08:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: Just a note about coverage: For an artist or photographer, articles or news stories devoted solely to their works are considered "significant coverage", no matter the amount of text in the article. Therefore this subject meets WP:GNG: "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." This subject also meets its profession-specific notability guideline, WP:ARTIST: "3. The person has created ... a ... collective body of work, that has been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Softlavender (talk) 02:34, 21 January 2015 (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.