Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shepard Ambellas


 * 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. J04n(talk page) 14:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Shepard Ambellas

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Biography of a seemingly non-notable person. The article contains numerous fictitious and spammy external links. Unable to find any reliable references for the subject in Google news, Google books, Google news archive, NewsBank, HighBeam, Questia and Credo. - MrX 01:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete I was unable to find in depth coverage of this person in reliable, independent sources. He is mentioned on websites he writes for, which are not independent.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  20:29, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * DO NOT DELETE *Shepard Ambellas has appeared on hundreds of radio shows. This is absolutely NOT a fake wiki page. A small Google search will show you Shepard Ambellas is WELL KNOWN and not just on his own websites. Someone doesnt have to be in GOOGLE NEWS to be real. Shepard has had an article appear on the Drudge Report as well as The London Guardian! His news outlets reach over 60,000 people a day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.222.221.194 (talk) 21:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply No one is arguing that the page is a fake. But we need reliable, independent sources discussing him, and so far, none have been furnished showing notability.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  22:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply There are thousands and thousands of websites and radio shows linking to his work. The website has over 7,000 pages linking to it according to Alexa. theintelhub.com is in the top TWENTY THOUSAND websites on the entire planet. I am gonna spend some time gathering all the source links in that regard and will update the original page. If you arent purposefully attacking him because of the content of his work then we will not have an issue because I do agree the page needs more source links. There are at least 20 people in the alternative media that have wiki pages whose websites are not in google news. Google News censors alternative media outlets regardless of their size. Also are you saying someone who reaches millions people a month cant have a wiki page if a mainstream news outlet owned by corporations hasnt written about him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.222.221.194 (talk) 22:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, links and Alexa ratings are not sufficient to establish notability for inclusion in Wikipedia. The subject has to have been covered in a non-trivial fashion by reputable sources. There are many news organizations with editorial oversight which will gladly report on alternative media outlets. That is why, in the nomination, I mentioned several other vast news and information repositories, not just Google news. Please review WP:N, WP:RS and WP:BIO to gain a better understanding of these policies. - MrX 22:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply Ok no matter what anyone says here Shepard Ambellas has appeared on dozens of nationally syndicated radio shows, his website reaches over a million people per month. His PHOTOS have been picked up in the London Guardian. In these photos Shepards website is in the CAPTION and he is actually in the photos taking pictures of businessman entering a meeting in Chantilly Virgina. The Drudge Report also linked this information. On top of that multiple mainstream news outlets have cited his website when they were attacking conspiracy theorists. All this is more than enough to have a wiki page. Should I just take it upon myself to revamp the page and include ALL source links for everything I just mentioned? Please let me know instead of linking me to pages that arent specific in any way. I have followed theintelhub.com work for a long time and I am not going to let Shepards page get deleted when it is legit although it DOES need source links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.222.221.194 (talk) 23:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but there's not an instant solution to fixing the article, if that is what you are trying to do. You would do well to read and understand the help tutorials, so that you understand what Wikipedia is about and how it works. Adding a bunch of links to the article will not help, because a link in itself is not necessarily a reliable source. A mere mention of the subject on another web site is not a reliable source. A caption in a photo is not a reliable source. The subject's own publications are not sufficient for establishing notability. I earnestly searched for this individual in thousands of publications and couldn't find him. I may have very well made a mistake in my search, but since you seem to be familiar with the subject, you should have no problem introducing some good sources into the article. - MrX 23:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The article Shepard Ambellas just reached it's 30 day mark on Wikipedia. Criticism are vague as to Notability & Reliable Sources. Shepard Ambellas receives 48,900 results from doing a simple search. The original issues with the article are:
 * REVIEW --

* This article may require copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling. (January 2013) * This article does not cite any references or sources. (January 2013) * This article appears to be written like an advertisement. (January 2013) * The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. (January 2013)

Before allowing any correction or edits to address these issues, you have rapidly come along to delete the article.

This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy.

Objectively, without even allowing the suggested edits to be made it appears the Alternative Media nature of Shepard Ambellas is the actual target. Can you address why you have aggressively marked the article for deletion without even one concrete suggestion?

Follow my logic:

This article may require copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling. (January 2013)

Grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling are simple to correct given time to do so.

This article does not cite any references or sources. (January 2013)

The article has numerous citations / links to third-party sources although the formatting may not be correct. These corrections are slated to be made asap.

This article appears to be written like an advertisement. (January 2013)

That is a somewhat personal interpretation and the language "appears" substantiates that fact. It either IS an advertizement or it IS NOT. This is a style issue and the article can be cleaned up as that is likely to be the intent of that criticism.

The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. (January 2013)

The Notability Guidelines criticism is where edit can be made to demonstrate that Shepard Ambellas as an article DOES meet the Notability Guidelines.

Taken in total, the issues seem to be primarily style and presenting links and formatting the article properly. Can you address the question asked as to the aggressive position that you've taken to mark "considered for deletion"?

This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page. Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed. For more information, particularly on merging or moving the article during the discussion, read the Guide to deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Excaliber12 (talk • contribs) 03:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Why would this article be deleted? Looks perfectly fine to me, is this a censorship issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.45.234 (talk) 16:41, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

In no way does this article appear like an advert, as I can find no advert. Looks fine to me. There are sources at the bottom, I see Ambellas pictured there in the London Guardian, and pictures he took. What's the deal? There are many references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.45.234 (talk) 16:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * To suggest that the article Shepard Ambellas is a Conspiracy Theory and should be included in a Deletion Debate under that category is Absurd. He is a living person, not a thing (Conspiracy Theory) This is becoming a disgrace the way this is being handled and appears to be outright censorship and a violation of Freedom of SpeechBold text - at least in the United States. Explain you reasoning for including Shepard Ambellas is a Conspiracy Theory Delete Discussion - I'd like to hear it as would many others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Excaliber12 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator and Cullen.Gtwfan52 (talk) 02:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * CommentThe only reason this can be deleted is lack of notability. All the arguments about the warning templates are moot.  They don't apply to deletion.  Being listed as a conspiracy related discussion is not making any comment that applies to this discussion; it is simply a clerical note that this discussion has been listed on a list with that title.  It will most likely result in more editors that favor the inclusion of conspiracy related articles coming here.  The lister was simply doing a clerical job and User:Excaliber12 jumped all over him, both here and on his talk page.  FYI, EXcaliber, the only freedom of speech you have promised to you in the US Constitution is that the Government will make no law restricting your freedom of speech.  Try working at Burger King and telling one of your customers they are a fat pig then come talk about your so-called freedom of speech.  This entire AfD is nothing but a bunch of wasted space.  The only (absolutely only) on point arguments are the nom and the other delete vote.  None of the rest of the ranting has made any point at all. Please read WP:GD to learn how to make a proper argument here. Gtwfan52 (talk) 02:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  ·Add§hore·  Talk To Me! 00:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)




 * Delete - First off, the piece is highly over-flagged. Please don't do that. While the subject has a substantial internet presence, I'm not seeing anything in the way of independently published biography or reporting on the reporter. This is often times the case with journalists, so it's with some hesitance that I agree with the nominator and Cullen here. Carrite (talk) 03:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - agree with Carrite above. I can see a number of articles by the subject, but very few about the subject, which is what we need to meet the "significant coverage" criteria of WP:GNG. Being a prolific content creator, unfortunately, doesn't not make a person automatically notable for WP's purposes. Had he been extensively cited or reviewed (per WP:AUTHOR), it might be a different story. Stalwart 111  05:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Article about a Fringe dweller and not well sourced. He is a cipher on references pointing to him. GenQuest  "Talk to Me" 09:32, 11 February 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.