Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shane Bugbee


 * 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 to delete, therefore default to keep. - Bobet 22:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Shane Bugbee
This page should be deleted for a number of reasons. First and foremost, he is non-notable. His name reveals only about 560 google hits, most prominent of which are wikipedia or wikipedia related pages (such as Answers.com), and webpages hawking his stuff. Secondly, the article suffers from being autobiographical, in that almost all of the article was written by Mr. Bugbee and his wife. Furthermore, the vast majority of claims in the article are subjective and completely unsourced. In short, the article is a messy, largely unverified biography about a non-notable individual that fails the criteria for inclusion. Edit: All of sources are either a)tiny webzines, b) concerning a local event or c) mention the subject only in passing. Detruncate 20:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC) Look back on all the notes & edits, they ALL revolve around Mr. Goad, a subject that seems to be attaching it self to me at this point. Let's talk stuff other than Jim Goad.
 * Keep - 560 Ghits would have been enough for me, but I actually get 1,780 hits, 360 unique. Anyway, can you cite proof that the subject or his spouse wrote the article? Even so, the article asserts notability and cites reliable sources that establish significance. I hate to assume bad faith, but I wonder if this in itself is a bad faith nom? Edit - The nominator has now downplayed the significance of some of the sources. I am not certain, but I feel that this guideline from WP:MUSIC may apply - Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture. PT  ( s-s-s-s ) 20:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment- 360 unique hits, then. Well, a user with no previous edits by the name "Amy bugbee" and another with the name "Shane Bugbee" edited the article several times. The creator of the article user "Cyril Grey" created about 5 longish articles out of whole cloth. The first one wasShane Bugbee, and all the others were subjects that had links to Shane Bugbee, and all lacked proper citation. Given that you're an inclusionist you will presumably be in favor of keeping everything, regardless of guidelines such as notability, which is the one that I'm primarily concerned with. Apologies if you feel that's rude of me to say.--Detruncate 21:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Please refer to the definition of ad hominem - finding fault with my personal viewpoints is irrelevant to our discussion on the merits of this article. Please cite the edits in question, though there is still no proof that the editors you speak of are in fact the subject or his spouse. It is an assumption, even if said editors declared themselves to be the subject or his spouse on their talk pages. Finally, there is still the assertion in the article and the reliable sources, which is more than enough to establish notability, regardless of whether or not the article's subject or his spouse edited the article. If you have issues with specific passages, edit them out yourself. I don't want to assume bad faith, but I feel your viewpoint on this may reveal a possible personal agenda. I have none, not being an associate or detractor of the subject or his rivals. PT  ( s-s-s-s ) 21:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Please just look at the history page. It's not that long, and all the evidence is right there. And I do think it is relevant (though not "wrong") that your stated view is not within the actual policies and guidelines that currently govern article deletion.--Detruncate 22:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * On second look of the history, I did see the edits you speak of. But I am unclear about what part of my view you're referring to not being part of guidelines. PT  ( s-s-s-s ) 22:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the WP:BIO guideline, and how that conflicts with the wikimedia definition of inclusionist. But actually, don't worry about it. Forget I brought it up.--Detruncate 22:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Refer to your talk page for any further discussion on this topic. PT  ( s-s-s-s ) 22:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep because plenty of sources and external links are cited. It looks like this person is kinda notable for publishing and doing a bunch of stuff. I think he passes WP:BIO rules. Allisonmontgomery69 22:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Subject of article is loathsome but that has nothing to do with whether his article should be kept. In an article that cites as many sources as this does, tag statements that are unverified with if you feel they're unverified. Don't bring it up for AfD until there's been a serious, good faith effort to improve it. And no attacking people's general beliefs; attack their specific arguments. Captainktainer * Talk 14:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Subject is non-notable and it is there is no encyclopedic value to have MySpace type webpages allowed here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 617USA (talk • contribs) 00:02, 22 July 2006.
 * Comment On what basis do you claim that he is not notable, given the evidence in the external links that weighs against your claim? He passes WP:BIO easily. Which criteria of WP:BIO does he fail? Why do you call it as "Myspace type webpage?" It would be helpful if you could provide specifics. Captainktainer * Talk 04:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I hate to dominate the discussion here, (though I started this and I intend to see it through) but to be fair, he fails every single criteria of WP:BIO. He has no widely recognized contributions in the field of politics, athletics, or entertainment, obviously. The only thing he even comes close to is publisher/author, but he has won no awards and has only one review that could be considered notable. He also fails the alternative tests of google hits, autobiography, verifiability, and the 100 years test. If we included everyone who has even been on a tour of any kind or has ever written a book... well, this deletion seems like a no-brainer.--Detruncate 22:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Publishing ANSWER ME #4 is justification enough. That zine was polarizing and widely discussed. Label the article as self promotion, but keep it.Ghosts&amp;empties 03:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment- To clarify, Bugbee published a reprint of ANSWER Me! #4 seven years after the original edition—the original edition is the one that caused all the controversy. Nearly all of the polarization and discussion occurred long before Bugbee's reprint. Bugbee had no hand in the magazine's creation. A review of all his "accomplishments" would show an identical pattern—attaching himself to noteworthy events or people while creating nothing of note himself. This, I believe, is a crucial distinction. Shawarma Chondroitin 13:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. What stands out among all of this is the fact that Bugbee himself—as a creator—has produced nothing notable or lasting. He hasn't written anything or filmed anything or recorded anything of note—absolutely nothing. Again and again, he's merely attached himself to notable people. If Forrest Gump is notable merely by squeezing himself into a photo op with LBJ, then I suppose Bugbee is notable. Otherwise, he very clearly isn't. Again, the Google search of his name (as a phrase) yielded only 502 hits. Look closely at the first few pages of hits—every one of them is linked to a site which Bugbee hosts. If that's not evidence enough that he needs to be deleted, I'm not sure what is. Look closely also at early versions of this page—they included an ad for, of all things, a soda-pop company which Bugbee apparently owns. That seems like conclusive evidence that he wrote his own profile. Shawarma Chondroitin 13:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment-This is all all directed from one place, Jim Goad, or a Jim Goad fan.

Let's talk google... the hit reflect that, yes, I'm still very active in a number of areas... so, yea, I have multiple sites for multiple projects.

when I run MY name on google I see sources ranging from mit.edu to philadelphiaweekly.com I see it relating to everything from the true crime books I've written to folks I've published.

I'm not sure if I deserve a listing here, but I do know, if I don't, most in the: Transgressive_artists category don't. Here's a book & author that tells me so: http://creationbooks.com/frameset.asp?p=news.html - Yes, that's my name next to the likes of JOE COLEMAN, GG ALLIN & MARILYN MANSON

Oh and one more thing - I DID NOT write my own profile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Shane Bugbee (talk • contribs)
 * Comment- Judging from what has been presented here, it is possible that Shane Bugbee did not write his profile. There is one other possibility that seems likely: His wife wrote it. The idea that anyone besides Bugbee or his wife wrote it, however, seems highly unlikely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.86.90 (talk • contribs)
 * Comment- Subject states the following: "Look back on all the notes & edits, they ALL revolve around Mr. Goad, " This is simply not true. The edit history is available for all to see. I uncovered only two edits that mention Goad at all. Nearly all of the edits involve typos, the idea that this page was created by the subject as self-promotion (following the links, this seems highly plausible), and the topic of the subject's notability/obscurity. I was considering a vote for inclusion until the subject compromised his own credibility with the above statement. I must now vote to delete. Adam Burton 10:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Note - This user's only edits are to this AfD. PT  ( s-s-s-s ) 19:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I think it's pretty telling that he refers to this article as his "profile" &mdash; as if Wikipedia were some kind of Myspace-like site. Run down the list of alternative tests at WP:BIO &mdash; Mr. Bugbee doesn't pass any of them, with the possible exception of expandability. Taken with the things others have pointed out about the questionability of any involvement at all in a lot of his purported accomplishments, it would take a lot to convince me that this person is notable enough to warrant a biographical article. --Ptkfgs 19:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Subject links to an unreleased book as evidence of his notability. The page he links to lists a book which also touts names such as John Aes-Nihil, Fred Berger, Jonathan Haynes, Stanton Lavey, Jonathan Shaw, Nick Bougas, and Shaun Partridge. What do they all have in common? None of them have a wikipedia profile. Adam Burton 10:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. So "Shane Bugbee" has appeared to declare himself notable. Well, this is what his detractors have been saying all along--his wikipedia page is a vanity page, and it seems obvious from a review of the evidence that he was the one who created it. I have never heard of this person until now, although he surrounds himself with famous and/or notorious people. I believe his page violates the spirit of Wikipedia. 63.242.155.58 13:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Note - This user's only edits are to this AfD. PT  ( s-s-s-s ) 19:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Entire profile appears to have been written by Shane Bugbee as self-promotion. I agree with prior opinions stating that surrounding oneself with notable people does not make oneself noteworthy, unless one creates something noteworthy themselves. A scan of Bugbee's "creative output" reveals no products/artifacts that have sold remotely well or been remotely successful or noteworthy. A small mention in some East Coast free weekly "upcoming events" column seems like little more than a reworded press release. If that alone made someone noteworthy, every indie rock band on the planet would deserve a wikipedia profile. 68.80.86.90 20:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - I dislike the direction this AfD is taking. I suspect sockpuppets are at work and there are personal agendas on both sides. Let the community come to a consensus about this article, please, regardless of your position and ESPECIALLY without personal prejudices based on your relation with the subject or whatever rivals/critics he may have. PT  ( s-s-s-s ) 22:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Inevitably, dismissing, debunking, and deflating the notability of someone who is attempting to be notable will seem somewhat personal and quite possibly harsh. However I agree in that we should strive to be civil, but also honest. The exact problem we have here is that this IS the community, or at least all of the community who cares about this article, so when you're referring to the community I'm not sure what you mean. Don't bandy about accusations of sock puppetry without any evidence, though. Just because a user is new to wikipedia does not mean that a) their opinions and arguments are invalid or b) they are a sock puppet. Detruncate 03:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Evidence of sockpuppetry: Shane Bugbee is asking his myspace friends to come here and vote: www.myspace.com/evilnow — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.86.90 (talk • contribs)
 * Comment After reviewing the "guide to deletion," it's apparent that Bugbee is employing "meatpuppetry" in this case. But the evidence is there (www.myspace.com/evilnow) and should be considered. Shawarma Chondroitin 12:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 16:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep for the moment, but excessive meatpuppetry might get me to change my mind. If he's published a book with Gacy, he probably counts as notable.--Sar e kOfVulcan 03:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:AUTO --G0zer 03:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - WP:AUTO doesn't say they have to be deleted. Please judge on merits.--Sar e kOfVulcan 03:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment You're right, it doesn't. In this case, the article is a non-notable (WP:BIO) case of self-promotion (WP:SPAM) and is a textbook example of a vanity page (WP:VAIN). --G0zer 03:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Vanity? Maybe. Spam? Don't see that. Non-notable? Seems like his association with Dana Plato should get him at least a footnote, if not a full article. .--Sar e kOfVulcan 03:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This is neat too.--Sar e kOfVulcan 03:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This dud is non-notable and his book on Gacy was self-published. Its  not like a major publisher produced it 617USA
 * Comment A search of "A Question of Doubt" reveals it was published in New York in 1991. Bugbee is not listed as publisher or co-author. In fact, the only links I could uncover which associate Bugbee with the book are a scant handful where Bugbee himself is claiming this. It's possible he reprinted the book, but it seems as if he's either fabricating or heavily embellishing the facts about exactly who co-wrote the book with Gacy. 68.80.86.90 14:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 'Comment The book "A Question of Doubt" is listed as being published by "Craig Bowley Consultants." A search of the phrase "Craig Bowley" alongside the word "Bugbee" yielded zero hits. 68.80.86.90 14:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - It's been almost a week! I know we haven't reached consensus, so let's either re-list or close and default to keep. PT  ( s-s-s-s ) 22:04, 26 July 2006 (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.