Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michel von Tell

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. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 11:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michel von Tell

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

Unable to find reliable refs about Michel von Tell. 'Bye Bye Lugow was only released last month and there are no reliable refs about it either. Nothing on Im Gespräch mit von Tell except for social media.

Creating editor removed the prod with "Some users think its relevant. On the you tube Channel you see many famouse people in the show, i found a lot reliable refs ans IMDB also. kind regards" Bgwhite (talk) 21:15, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 21:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Reason for removing PROD is not valid; A) being seen with famous people does not create notability, B) IMDB is not a reliable site. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 23:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He ist listed in IMDB, he runs a talk show, his movie is viewed nearly 100 000 times in YT in just some days and was in tv, WP:PORNBIO says - Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. Peter Scholl Latour - one of European most important journalists was in his show and in the movie.

More then enoght and more many other articles got . movie with a lot of views in YT http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttqpWq937Mc tvshow on you tube with 340 000 views in 6 months http://www.youtube.com/user/ZensurWachter there are also many other chanels with stuff of him imdb http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2941526/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1 http://www.imdb.com/name/nm5694016/?ref_=tt_ov_dr Jimkio12 (talk) 04:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All four links cannot be considered as reliable sources per WP:RS. Being listed on IMDB does not automatically establish notability - you must be able to provide independent sources apart from the two websites above. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 05:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've found two German language articles, but both don't seem to be reliable. Everything else includes passing mentions, and third party links that have nothing to do with the subject. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 05:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

like i sayed Wikipedia:PORNBIO says " Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." 90 000 views of the movie and 340 000 of the show should be significant. regards Jimkio12 (talk) 05:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but please read WP:BASIC - "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Being significant does not make the subject notable if such claims are not backed by reliable sources dictated under WP:RS. All BLPs are required to have these if they are to have a chance to stay in WP. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 05:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its given - there are many diferent publishers, there are many independent and i say it again https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PORNBIO#Entertainers . " Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." 90 000 views of the movie and 340 000 of the show should be significant. over a half million indipendet sources. by the way there is an amount of very high class guests in the show. another point witch is in the entertainer criteria" Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions". talked in his show to a

lot of outstanding unique people about profific topics. like i sayed. for me rel is absolutly given. the only point you have got is - i dont accept yt and imdb at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimkio12 (talk • contribs) 05:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Over half a milion" - I can see roughly less than 42 hits on Google, none of them being actually reliable. If there are indeed several independent sources that I or Bgwhite may have missed, please mention them here. Again, much of the claims are unreferenced. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 06:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

you will find a bit more if you looking for "tell" or "von tell". mainly they use short. and it dosent change something. it is in a very small country and got 1 mio views if you see all diffrent videos on all diffrent channels in yt (diffrent sources). he s on tv and radio. and here are some sources i found in 5 min. sure you eaven are able to find more. but finaly - just the fact he got a huge fan base should be enough acording to PORNBIO. i understand not everything is relevant but to be hypercritic is also not the way. regards

http://www.wissensmanufaktur.net/interviews  -    http://www.lotran.de/?p=270   -  http://www.formelody.com/XId5uluqh1Nvv -   http://unzensiertinformiert.de/2013/03/christoph-horstel-im-gesprach-mit-michel-von-tell-wahl-2013-nahost-chavez-iran-syrien/  -  www.meed.tv/qMk4JWJ86zqQK‎ -

Back to Delete. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 00:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note I've put the TV show up for AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Im Gespräch mit. Bgwhite (talk) 05:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep reliable and relevant to me Hall9OOO (talk) 18:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC)— Hall9OOO (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep brings up enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG

Capconio (talk) 20:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)— Capconio (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - The two editors above have made little or no contributions outside of this AfD nomination - I can smell socks from here. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 00:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I do not know if it is appropriate to accuse other contributors of being sockpuppets solely because they have just now chosen to register as per WP:NPA. My main concern is the quality of the sources provided above. I was under the impression that the links to IMDB were not credible sources of notability in and of themselves and not valid WP sources. Is there anyway to get someone who is good at translating to work on the other links (spiegel, etc?) to see if they are valid?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrPhen (talk • contribs) 03:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Jimkio12. Based on their recent interactions, chances of sockpuppetry are quite high. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 03:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note something to DrPhen, on Wikipedia, it's kind of suspicious when multiple accounts with the same writing style and other characteristics show up in the middle of an AFD debate without any other edits. It's way too close to be coincidental. This has happened a lot of times. Thekillerpenguin (talk)

That's a very good point. I had not realised that these were also single-purpose accounts. It is very suspicious of them to do such a thing here, and I am now sceptical of any validity towards this article if its creators are willing to resort to abuse of process and subterfuge rather than manufacturing valid sources to establish notability. DrPhen (talk) 03:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

06:40,

5 June 2013 (UTC)

Delete non-notable, sources are poor for what we'd need to support a BLP. Sockpuppet 'votes' are also a concern, as it tends to indicate spam or conflict-of-interest editing. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 09:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no reliable sources to establish notability. In addition to that the editing pattern, with User:Jimkio12 being the only contributor, makes me believe there's a COI involved, and that the article is used for self-promotion. Thomas.W (talk) 09:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looking over this article it seems to be unsalvagable. Even once you pick past the grotesque grammar and odd orthography, you still have the insurmountable barrier of notability. The article barely even pretends that this man is actually notable in the film industry. The sources like substance and I could not find anything online to support this man's notability. DrPhen (talk) 03:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above, does not meet GNG or N. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:58, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ' Keep -- It may not be a good article, but the subject is clearly notable. Daftgrind (talk) 16:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)— Daftgrind (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Another new user account, with a single edit, the one on this AfD. Thomas.W (talk) 16:24, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Keep-sources are there. The subject is notable Oliveru1980 (talk) 17:56, 9 June 2013 (UTC)— Oliveru1980 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

And User:Oliveru1980, who is a new user yet found his way to WP:ANI for his very first edit, thus showing that he has been here before under another name, not only added his vote to this AfD but also deleted my comment above about another new user. SO I would say that there's a clear case of sock and/or meat puppetry here. Thomas.W (talk) 18:11, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Seems like someone around here (probably the creator) is quite the prolific sockmaster, although I'm not 100% sure. Thekillerpenguin (talk) 05:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I recommend that the closing admin disregard all the references above to WP:PORNBIO. There is no indication in this article that the subject has anything to do with pornography. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No WP:RS evidence of the subject meeting WP:ANYBIO / WP:FILMMAKER criteria. AllyD (talk) 06:15, 11 June 2013 (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.