Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Adam Kontras (2nd nomination)


 * Keep. Adam's status as first video blogger has been clearly verified. Just because the source comes out of the Philippines, not the US, doesn't make it any less valid. Ironically, the Wikipedia pages for the GMA Network and the host of the show confirm that, as anyone debating its validity could have easily discovered. Kaminsky's book does include a disclaimer that he gathered everything from personal experience, but he was acting in the function of a journalist in covering the rise of video blogging. There is no evidence that he was acting in any other capacity when he described Adam's video blog as the first one. (And at this point, it may also have the distinction of being the longest-running video blog.)

Furthermore, Adam's "Let's Bomb Iran" song parody, as well as his CBS Early Show appearances, certainly merit inclusion as contributions to entertainment. I thought the point of Wikipedia was to compile facts in a handy reference guide. Without limitations on space, why not err on the side of leaving an article like this on the site? I can understand deleting articles with marginal value, but this one doesn't fall in that category, in my view. — Brad Cook Bradcwriter (talk • contribs) 17:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Cyberstalker discussion
''Note: This discussion has been moved from the main AfD page, with approval from PeterSymonds (the originator of the AfD request), as it is irrelevant to the main discussion. &mdash;Gordon P. Hemsley&rarr; &#x2709; 21:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)''


 * Delete. As illustrated in the previous comments from IP address 98.157.17.229 (an IP address that can be traced to the Subject of the Wiki entry's home in Van Nuys) above, the subject of this page is editing his own page in as positive a light as possible, this entry is nothing more than an advertisement for some sort of notoriety for the subject. All of the links point to web pages that are operated by the subject, and there are absolutely zero references from reputable sources. Say, a major News, or media organization, there is absolutely no acknowledgement of Adam Kontras within CBS. This seems to be quite the subculture movement with the only mention of Adam Kontras' existance being Blogs of his, and blogs of others about him, someone trying to be famous for trying to be famous as it were. This entry does not live up to the level of an encyclopedic entry, as it is far too autobiographical. I am searching presently for further references.24.125.217.58 (talk) 14:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC) — 24.125.217.58 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep. There are 3 references from CBS in the references section. Also, MSNBC from an appearence on Countdown with Keith Olbermann and several international media sources. I ask those reviewing this to note the previous poster's IP address (24.125.217.58) in the history - as it's already been flagged as vandalizing this page.  His earlier revisions under this address (as well as 71.63.111.177, Heatherjuarez and Freakee73) speak for themselves.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.151.17.229 (talk) 16:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Vote struck; you cannot vote twice. Please add further comment to your original comment. Thanks. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 18:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC) --> — 98.151.17.229 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * New users, please try to comment on content, not on the contributor, and don't forget to sign your posts with ~ . Thanks. — Rankiri (talk) 18:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. The CBS references all point to a generic place within CBS, nothing related to Mr. Kuntras there. Other references seem to point to other 'blogger' pages, the Kieth oberman piece does not refer to Mr. Kuntras either, just goes on about some video clips and such. There really seems little to warrant a Wikipedia entry here. This should be biographical if merited, seems that this entry is largly of an autobiographical nature and pulled directly from the subjects own pages. 173.163.203.62 (talk) 19:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC) — 173.163.203.62 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete.No links to other wikipedia content, would seem that if a CBS show was claimed as noteriety, that there would be a link to that, or to some credits from the show in question. There is nothing on the morning show that credits an Adam Kontras at all. Being mentioned on Kieth Oberman is no more noteriety than being an extra on a sitcom for example. If it is not a credited item on a program then it is not substantial. The subjects works seem sophmoric humour at best, Not Wiki material.24.125.118.135 (talk) 19:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC) — 24.125.118.135 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete.The links for CBS references do not point to anything, just a blank page at CBS. The other references seem to be the subjects own web sites. Believe me, there is nothing to see here!Heathervickery (talk) 19:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC) — Heathervickery (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete. 1996 Sundance film festival was Vlogged, with numerous film makers taking advantage of the new medium. Cannot determine the inventor of 'Video Blogging'.

http://www.google.com/search?q=video+blogging+history&hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&rlz=1I7TSHB_enUS371&tbs=tl:1&tbo=u&ei=SzC-S8PFIoL6lwemhZ2KBw&sa=X&oi=timeline_result&ct=title&resnum=11&ved=0CCoQ5wIwCg 141.152.22.200 (talk) 22:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC) — 141.152.22.200 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete.Al Gore invented the internet, and hence video blogging in the late 1970's, The first video blogger would be the very first person to ever attach a video camera to thier computer and post it on the internet. The modern inception of the internet began in 1983, Certainly someone invented the concept of video logging prior to 2000.Iansollayates (talk) 22:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC) — Iansollayates (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * delete Seems that Mr. Kuntras' page is about what he had hoped would happen, with no success at actually making something happen. There are several thousand of people wandering around LA today that have written screenplays, or had pilot shows. Some of them probably wonderful entertainment. I am not saying Adam Kontras is entertaining in the least, but until you get your name rolling in the credits, and get something actually in the media, and not just on a blog that millions of people have. A Philipino blog is not adequate referance either... Then you have not really achieved anything. I like what the poster earlier said, it seems that in self promotion, adam Kuntras wants to become famous for simply trying to be so, I do not know the format on how to do this, just wanted to post a comment. Thank youVickeryheather (talk) 00:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC) — Vickeryheather (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * additional info this is a free form debate, Stalking in a sinister mode is in itself a rediculous claim, there has been information gathered, and while it may not be the kind of information that the subject of the article would like to be public knowledge, the subject claims to be a public figure. As such, everything that is public information is fair game. Every stone unturned has a responsabilty to be made public. If there is actually a Wikipedia article after this, I do believe it to be fair to have a Personal life section, as all biographical, (not autobiographical) entries have in Wikipedia. While this may not put the subject in a positive light, it is the light that the subject has chosen to enter, as such it should all be in said light. Stalking would be if one had actually followed someone and placed thier life in jeopardy, or made one fear for thier safety. What we have her is a nuisance there is a less dramatic difference. The truth, and all of the truth should be told in its entirety, Some of us do not deny what we have done, others should be as forthcoming. Enough has been hidden already.24.125.217.58 (talk) 15:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * keep All of the above 'delete' discussions have been added by Charles Groves. He is indeed cyberstalking Adam, as well as the user he is impersonating 'Heather Vickery'. Please verify the IP addresses used. It will be found to be coming from the same two that have also been used to vandalize the page for the past several weeks. Groves is impersonating Heather as well as the user 'Iansollayates'. Once a pattern is detected to the duplicate IP addresses please refer to Wikipedia's own 'Deletion policy'. Consistent violations are occurring here.

For example: from "How to Discuss an AfD" "AfDs are a place for rational discussion of whether an article is able to meet Wikipedia’s article guidelines and policies. Reasonable editors will often disagree, but valid arguments will be given more weight than unsupported statements. When an editor offers arguments or evidence that do not explain how the article meets/violates policy, they may only need a reminder to engage in constructive, on-topic discussion. But a pattern of groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignoring content guidelines may become disruptive. If a pattern of disruptive behavior persists after efforts are made to correct the situation through dialogue, please consider a dispute resolution process outside the current AfD." Yes, the cyberstalker's contributions are becoming quite disruptive.

Violation: "The following are practices that should be avoided:

* The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments. * When making your case or responding to others, explain how the article meets/violates policy rather than merely stating that it meets/violates the policy. * Do not use multiple accounts to reinforce your opinions. Multiple recommendations by users shown to be using "sock puppets" (multiple accounts belonging to the same person) will be discounted and the user manipulating consensus with multiple accounts will likely be blocked indefinitely. That would be fantastic if Wikipedia administrators or moderators would indefinitely block the stalker, again, as his comments are disruptive, uneducated, unfactual, and are not able to be sustained by verifiable arguments.

Violation: There are many good ways to advocate keeping, deleting, or even redirecting an article. This includes: The accusation "VANITY" should be avoided [3], and is not in itself a reason for deletion. The argument "non-neutral point of view" (violates WP:NPOV) is often used, but often such articles can be salvaged, so this is not a very strong reason for deletion either. Upon review of 'delete' contributions, more than one refer to a direct violation of this. It would appear that the sociopath Charles Groves is clearly envious of Adam's status and notoriety. Just because one is jealous of another's successes is not a reason for deletion as per Wikipedia's own guidelines.

Violation: You do not have to make a recommendation on every nomination; consider not participating if:

* A nomination involves a topic with which you are unfamiliar. Charles Groves has fabricated so many stories regarding Adam, that his reality is completed convoluted. With that being said, if one is not in touch with reality, one is clearly not capable of making an informed educated decision as to the fate of another's entry on this site. In closing, please do research the facts behind this nomination. It will be found to be completely unwarranted, unfounded, and merely a vicious attack of a mentally ill, obsessed, stalker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Statement1 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC) Statement1 (talk) 02:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC) — Statement1 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Statement1- ok, this is Charles, Adam Clearly knows what he has done to me and my dreams. As such I have no fond feelings for him, and do wish the absolute worst for him and his future, once again, for what he has done, I hope she was worth it by the way. As far as this deletion discusion, I did not initiate the deletion, but did add the one from IP address 24.125.217.58, as my real sign in is no longer allowed despite me quoting references for the later things I have said anyway. I did post a thing on my myspace page... and who is stalking who? I simply direct people to check out Mr. Kontrass's sites and feel free to make up their own minds about what they feel of him. Should not be such a stretch as to what peoples opinion would be after viewing his 'talent', and needless to say I would not be a fan if my girlfriend would not have dumped me in LA to go to him. Hey you want a show? That would be a good one! People love that kind of sick stuff. Whatever, this is highly entertaining. Oh and one other thing, I have had internet access since 1993, got my first digital camera in 1995, and sent my mother a video along with a story. I am the first video blogger, I want my wiki page!188.72.202.138 (talk) 02:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Yes keep, but with somewhat extensive revision. The CBS show if verified should be included. Shows that never made it past the pilot/expirimental stage is quite a stretch to be included. As far as first internet Video Logger, I do not see how this could be verified. This is a combination of technologies that has indeed existed before 2000. Anyone could claim to be the first, and then the relevance of this would have to be explained I would feel. All of the references to personal websites definately should go. Maybe not officially a delete in my book, but put me down for a serious revision.188.72.202.138 (talk) 05:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC) — 188.72.202.138 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment. The Myspace blog entry is no longer available, but I still have a copy of it in my browser's cache. The posting was titled "Destroy!!!" and asked users to "go there and feel free to post comments on the discussion board, be sure to put *Delete. at the beginning of your comments so that they may be tallied". I urge the closing admin to be more cautious. — Rankiri (talk) 14:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * additional info. There is nothing wrong with someone posting a personal Myspace entry to encourage lively debate, it actually said to go to Mr. kontras' websites and such, view his 'works' and draw your own conclutions. Then to post him for deletion. Just because there exists a very powerful personal vendetta against the subject, that has nothing to do with facts presented no matter where or who they come from. it also has nothing to do with an open and free debate on the subject at hand. This is called free form debate after all, and the closing admin will no doubt observe, as they say 'just the facts maam' I have first hand knowledge that other than this entry only the first delete entry above is Charles Groves', I believe that I, I mean he has as much right as anyone else to scavenge for facts in all of this, and furthermore I resent the implication that simply because something is against the subject of this, that it in any way is incorrect, and yet further the discussion is supposed to be about mr Kontras, In the mean time I will be searching dilligently for more facts to add to the discussion, so as to further this free form debate. If anyone feels that anything illegal is taking place, I can find a room full of civil rights attorneys who feel otherwise. So note to closing admin, observe just the facts related to the subject, Thank you.24.125.217.58 (talk) 15:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 24.125.217.58 - To those reading, please note the IP address.Adam4tvs (talk) 17:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * delete It seems that the CBS entries are valid, however worlds first video blogger is a bit more difficult to verify than first airplane flight, or first winner of the Tour de France. Anyone could claim that title and I suppose that Mr. Kuntrass has, so until someone better is found... the link above referring to the 1996 Sundance film festival is an interesting claim, that should be noted. This article is in need of a rewrite however to correct all the broken reference links, and removal of all personal references. Djmikelpanda (talk) 15:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC) — Djmikelpanda (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I realize that most reading will recognize Charles by his spelling of my name with "Kunt" and this time "ass", but in case people are skimming, I thought I'd point that out. And if you still think his point is valid - simply click the link he assumes you won't scroll all the way back up to find:  there is no mention of 1996 or Sundance.Adam4tvs (talk) 17:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

There appears to be some legitimate arguments in here, and not simply the 'stalker' distraction that has been devised as a tactic to draw attention from the matter at hand, namely verifiable and notable references as pointed out by some users on this page. It appears that the subject and his ally http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GPHemsley in creating this myth, are attempting to silence the ones who are differing in thought from thier own. This debate should be an open forum for all, if the critisism is not allowed; then Wikipedia is simply anouther social networking site, and not a place for valid reference. This is being used as a promotional tool in this instance, to further a flagging career. Please see the subjects own website and verify. CHARLES FRANKLIN GROVES III, 3400 Rosewood Avenue, Richmond, Virginia 23221, 804-370-1706, freakee@comcast.net, I have nothing to hide! 24.125.217.58 (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)