Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Jacob Truedson Demitz

This is officially the craziest AfD I have seen in years. Is M. Night Shyamalan directing this?  A  Train talk 19:52, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It's nuts! This is why COI editing and autobiographical input presents such a problem. But it's been going on for nearly 10 years without anyone noticing it, it all started here because I replaced a photo of one of Demitz's friends supposedly singing a particular song in his cabaret with a more appropriate image. So I started looking for more exemples and it snowballed from there. Domdeparis (talk) 12:50, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually it was noticed on svwp long time ago and the "bad" reputation svwp has among some on enwp is because we did not let it go on. You also notice that if a Swedish wikipedian writes anything we are said to be haunting here "too". I'm happy someone else saw it without involvement from svwp. But yes it is crazy. Adville (talk) 13:01, 20 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's crazy, to put it mildly. And tragic. No wonder he was permanently banned from Swedish Wikipedia. Disembodied Soul (talk) 13:36, 20 October 2017 (UTC)


 * To the craziness adds that one person has made comments in the discussion under two different usernames/signatures. I don't know exactly how this is handled on English Wikipedia. /NH (talk) 15:07, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure which 2 people you mean. Am I involved, the "tragic" one, the one with the "bad reputation", according to two of your pals from Swedish Wikipedia, the one falsely accused of "autobiographical input" by the English Wikipedian out to clean up a huge amount of (imaginary) damage? Who? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:29, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The hinting and gossiping and character assassination on this talkpage needs to stop now. Just because it's an obscure page doesn't mean you get to make whatever accusations you like,, or that you get to talk about people like that, . You realize there are actual humans behind the internet accounts, on Wikipedia and elsewhere, all of you? As for how suspicions of abuse of multiple accounts are handled on English Wikipedia, that would be at WP:SPI. Not by spreading FUD on random pages. Bishonen &#124; talk 16:12, 21 October 2017 (UTC).
 * I object to your comment. There is no hinting or gossiping from my side. This situation is entirely down to COI editing and the refusal by that editor to disclose his COI and snowballed from a simple replacement of a photo. That is a fact. No gossip or hinting. I have made no accusations whatsoever. This is not an obscure page. Everyone watching the project page gets notifications about this page too. And whilst you've decided to mention me here maybe you would be decent enough to reply to my question that you have so far ignored about the book that you claim is the best bet for notability. Is it a RS has it had significant coverage? And BTW I totally agree with you about making accusations about the suspicions of multiple accounts. Assuming good faith is very important and expressing otherwise is counterproductive. This page should be judged on its own merits on notability and the sources provided (hence my question about the book). Domdeparis (talk) 18:07, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hm, if FUD is what you both mean, "autobiographical input ... been going on for nearly 10 years" - nuff said re: "I have made no accusations whatsoever." --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:16, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hm II: In my very first comments when this whole witch hunt started I included this totally ignored link which shows quite clearly (to anyone more interested in the truth than in grandstandning as the Great Hero of Wikipedia) that "the refusal by that editor to disclose his COI" also is a hm-able accusation. I'm sorry for not having it in me, without throwing up, to be more diplomatic. Goodness knows, I've really tried, I swear. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:30, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


 * You say assuming good faith is important and you have made no accusations about suspicions of multiple accounts, Domdeparis. What then did you mean by "autobiographical input" (going on for nearly ten years, yet) above? Autobiographical input on Jacob Truedson Demitz would be input by Jacob Truedson Demitz. Were you talking about some other kind of autobiographical input, by someone else, somewhere else? As for the book, I'd be surprised if it was "notable" by Wikipedia's criteria. Academic sources rarely are (though it happens). You can see Westerling's NYCDH profile here and at Stockholm university here. Most likely he composed them himself (I work in academe too, I know how that goes), but I hardly suppose he made up the details. Bishonen &#124; talk 19:09, 21 October 2017 (UTC).
 * The autobiographical content refers to the supposed statement by Demitz. Not that complicated to understand I thought. And for the book (which is not published by a university press or other scholarly house) I still don't know if you are saying if it is really useful for notability purposes. Domdeparis (talk) 20:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Quite complicated to understand since you said "autobiographical input" had been going on for ten years (without anyone noticing, yet). JTD first made a statement on the AfD, or anywhere as far as I know, three days ago. If you think it's plausibly deniable that you were talking about autobiographical input into the article, I'll drop the matter. You have asked if I thought Westerling's book was notable (How notable is Westerling's book? My question is how notable is the book?) and also if it was a reliable source. I was attempting a distinction: a book doesn't have to be notable to be a reliable source. So, do I think Westerling's book is a RS in the sense that there's enough about Demitz in it? The answer is that I'm far from sure. You have the scanned pages from it, as well as me, or so I assume; you can make your own judgment. Bishonen &#124; talk 22:56, 21 October 2017 (UTC).
 * you misunderstood my comment but I agree that it could be misunderstood so I think we'll let that lie. I haven't received the pages and even if I had it wouldn't help me to determine if this book is sufficient to prove notability. My question is this, is it sufficient to have been mentioned in a book to be notable or does the book have to have been widely distributed itself. In the same way that we look at the other sources. A local paper that mentions something carries less weight than the same text in a national paper. So has this book been edited in large numbers? Has it been reviewed ? Is it widely cited ? Domdeparis (talk)
 * Hm - "I haven't received the pages": I just forwarded my e-mail of Oct. 11 to show that you did indeed receive them then. Shall I also forward your first reply "Would it be possible to say which newspaper each clipping comes from?" and your second "Difficult to work out your coding please supply the full names" - ? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:40, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * My apologies they were in fact in the mail sent by SW but as my Swedish friend who was supposed to help translate has not been available and others have taken on the task of going through them I didn't go through them all but as I said it is less the content of the book than the importance of the book itself that I have been asking about. Domdeparis (talk) 04:34, 22 October 2017 (UTC)