Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Basedow (2nd nomination)

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 keep. Given the uncontested sources, it seems like notability exists. I'll tag the page as cleanup needed since a number of concerns relate to article quality; if spam or puffery start becoming a problem, protection can be asked for - a WP:TNT deletion does not appear to have consensus. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Basedow

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was deleted in April 2015, recreated, speedy deleted, and that deletion brought to deletion review. The result of that review was to overturn the G4 and bring it back here for review. The article history is a total mess. I think I've got it restored to a reasonable prior version, but it's possible a different version would make more sense.

In any case, this is an administrative action only, I have no opinion on the outcome. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural comment - Why was the pre-AFD version originally restored? The DRV was overturned based on the new draft. I've restored the article to the version discussed in the DRV.StonefieldBreeze (talk) 21:17, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify, what is the nomination rationale?StonefieldBreeze (talk) 02:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I found this excellent piece of significant coverage in the Los Angeles Times, [1], and of the sources linked in the older deletion discussion, did find this little review of his company in The Star. I don't see the source as very reputable, but he also was nominated for some awards recently here. Ordinarily this would make me lean towards a keep vote. However, since I had trouble finding much else, I'm still torn. I suspect there is some material somewhere that could push the page over the edge and into notable territory, but I myself haven't found it. Yvarta (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Yvarta:- Please see the current revision. The revision that was restored after DRV and then nominated for this AFD was the incorrect pre-DR version.StonefieldBreeze (talk) 13:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The B. O. B. (Big Orange Box) says: "(t)his biography of a living person needs additional citations for verification ... (its) topic... may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies... (it) contains original research... some of (its)... sources may not be reliable.... (it) contain(s) an excessive amount of intricate detail that may only interest a specific audience... a major contributor to (it)... appears to have a close connection with its subject.... (and it) contains content that is written like an advertisement..." 'Nuff said. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 02:02, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@KATMAKROFAN:- Please see the current revision. The revision that was restored after DRV and then nominated for this AFD was the incorrect pre-DRV version. StonefieldBreeze (talk) 13:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Despite this article having existed almost continuously since 2004, I haven't been able to find a non-stub-length version that A) is even close to neutral, and B) has lasted more than a week before being replaced with spam. (I'd be happy to be shown to be wrong. This is the draft version that got it to squeak past a G4 endorsement at DRV, but it's no exception.) It's abundantly obvious we can't maintain an article on this person that meets our core content policies. Notability is the wrong question to be asking. Delete. —Cryptic 02:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Cryptic: If there's an issue with spam, then WP:PROTECT (which is is used for other high profilem articles) applies. If the topic meets WP:N, is properly sourced, and neutrality alone is the issue, that can be addressed outside AFD.StonefieldBreeze (talk) 02:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to be under the mistaken impression that your version is neutral. There is no neutral, sourced, non-stub version to revert to and protect. —Cryptic 03:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kill it with fire. Mr Basedow isn't behaving like someone we can work with, so he can promote himself somewhere else.—S Marshall T/C 12:53, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Does the article or topic have any content issues?StonefieldBreeze (talk) 02:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - The prior AFD raised issues of notability, sourcing, and wording which the current version that I've drafted addresses. The amount of spam an article does/doesn't receive is not an inclusion criteria. If it's a concern, then WP:PROTECT applies. A lot of these comments reflect WP:IDONTLIKEIT.StonefieldBreeze (talk) 21:42, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, StonefieldBreeze, for all 40 of your edits. I can't help noticing that 31 of them related to John Basedow.—S Marshall T/C 21:57, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ADHOM. I'm not really active here anymore. StonefieldBreeze (talk) 22:06, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. StonefieldBreeze (talk) 22:37, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. StonefieldBreeze (talk) 22:37, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. StonefieldBreeze (talk) 22:37, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. StonefieldBreeze (talk) 22:37, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. StonefieldBreeze (talk) 22:37, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. StonefieldBreeze (talk) 22:37, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable fitness figure.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I was just pinged about a new version being uploaded/reverted, and per these three sources, [2], [3], and Exceptional People Magazine, vote keep. I'm not thrilled to be using a publication with the name Exceptional People Magazine as a source, but there are a few others that look ok on there as well. Yvarta (talk) 20:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO; strictly a vanity page. No indications of notability or significance; this article exists strictly to promote the subject. The language is puffed up and the article is not neutral. Keeping such promotional articles is not in the best interest of the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this won't be seen as snarky, but it would take all of a minute to remove the egregious fluff, and another thirty seconds to have it down to a few neutral sentences with the good sources - so being promotional shouldn't be an issue, as we have the power to clean it up, and ban repeat COI offenders. If you feel it isn't notable per refs, that is a different argument entirely, of course. Yvarta (talk) 01:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the LAT piece is indeed RS coverage that was missed last time, but the other new sources are not helpful for demonstrating notability. Given that there are not multiple substantial RSs and that the article is clearly being used for promotion, deletion is the best course of action. SmartSE (talk) 16:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is coverage in the Los Angeles Times, Good Day New York (Fox News), New Media Rockstars, Long Island Business News, San Diego Gay and Lesbian News, among others. Are the news sources besides the LA Times not WP:RS? If it's not a matter of WP:N, but an issue with the content, the article should be edited, not deleted.StonefieldBreeze (talk) 03:05, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've added in coverage from The Washington Post and the Baltiore Sun. There is also coverage in the Cleveland Plain Dealer. The topic is a notable figure and there is coverage across multiple WP:RS. The article is a bio that is properly sourced, not a spam WP:PROMO. StonefieldBreeze (talk) 11:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject passes the notability threshold with sources such as the ones from The LA Times and The New York Times. There are pro-subject neutrality issues for sure--best known for his "signature washboard abs?" c'mon, not even verifiable--but they don't strike me as so widespread as to warrant blowing up the whole article. There is salvageable material in there. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:47, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you volunteering to salvage? This article has been promotional spam for nearly twelve years without anyone but paid editors being willing to touch it.
  You should also have mentioned that you were canvassed to this afd. —Cryptic 22:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not volunteering. I am simply offering my view. I came here from a notification at WP:BLPN. The notification could have been written more neutrally for sure, but I don't think it invalidates my arguments. I have !voted Delete many more times than Keep. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. After reviewing this article's 22 [as of this writing] inline cites and the 5 entries under "External links", I have no doubt that subject has more than sufficient celebrity as well as notability to remain as a Wikipedia entry. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 22:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.