- Sean Kennedy (Author) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Two years have passed -- speedy deletion should be reconsidered as a deletion discussion CelticWonder (talk) 17:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- edit: Ok, instead of delete, I propose moving article to Sean Kennedy (Radio personality). CelticWonder (talk) 23:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion (as speedy deleter). The article as reposted still had no indication of notability, and cited no independent sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion: The most recent article failed to address notability issues raised in previous AfDs. Victoriagirl (talk) 18:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I propose a potential WP:Conflict of interest with User:Victoriagirl, who has been the originating proponent of deletion twice. "I'm afraid a 200-word Wired article from 2000 .. doesn't quite make the grade." (so simply because a news article is now 9 years old, this suddenly makes it "invalid"???) "I note the two 'books' discussed in the article are not included at Library and Archives Canada (a must for titles published in this country)," (Abaddon was published in the US -- NO LAC REQUIREMENT) "nor are they recognized by any of the online retailers and used book searches I checked" (Abaddon is available at Amazon.com).
To quote others that appear reluctant to participate on WP (yet) regarding this issue: It is interesting to note that User:Victoriagirl is from Vancouver. Maybe she has an axe to grind with Sean? Why else would she try so hard to delete THIS article, and not others we've seen with much more flimsy reason to not be deleted? It certainly seems easy for her to just say, "Your new evidence doesn't refute my assertions" -- and yet, I haven't seen her examples other than: "It's still not in the LAC" Does this mean that any book by any author that's not in the US Library of Congress, ISBN number or not, is suddenly invalid? ... I think she's grasping at straws to further an agenda. The fact that she's Canadian and from Vancouver makes me suspicious. I don't want to get all conspiracy theory here, but it sure seems like this person is the ONLY one who objects to this article. Sure, she's got a lot of Wikipedia credentials, and it sure seems like she's got nothing better to do than police Wikipedia, but seriously, what's her REAL beef that she's using minute technicalities to keep Sean out of Wikipedia, when so many OTHER articles are slipping by her unnoticed? Why the focus? Why the practiced, detached "this is just how it is" but with the zeal of someone with an agenda?
...and another: Personally I'd rather take the good with the bad. Nothing is ever 100% true or false. Given an updatable dynamic "encyclopedia" you will have difficulties of conflict between people on what is right and wrong, THAT IS HOW HISTORY/KNOWLEDGE WORKS. Consider that paper encyclopedias a> arent perfect either b> probably had editor battles behind the scenes on the content c> are non editable once released. Just simply putting the dynamic element to things makes the other two challenges simply more apparent. Instead of blaming the attempt at providing knowledge (which is hella better than funk and wagnals so far as i've seen). Why not fight the good fight and do your best for the sake of the truths you do know? I know not everyone here is american, but for the most part Wikipedia and most of the peeps here are. A fundamental American concept is to debate and fight for what you believe in, that was the foundation of our nation, so why is suddenly this such a bad thing in a knowledge base? The responsibility is there not only to make things better that you see wrong, but as well, like other threads and posts i've said, to take responsibility for what you read and use your head. You simply seem to want to make a rule that something is "bad". Feel free. I'll happily keep reading and trying to learn more, no loss for me. I understand it's frustrating, but if life is easy you are doing something wrong. The battles of wikipedia are very much a load of bullshit sometimes, sure. Better to participate and do our best to bring it to improvement than to wash our hands of it and let it fill the heads of the masses who refuse to think about what they read or hear.
I'm not going anywhere. This article will stay. CelticWonder (talk) 18:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Deletion (as creator). NOTABLE = YES.
- Person is "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"
- Person is "popular", and as an an "entertainer - Has a large fan base AND a significant 'cult' following"
- RantMedia (almost 19,000 Google hits) was co-founded with his friend James O'Brien, and their forum currently has 615 members with over 19,000 posts just since the forum site was upgraded less than two years ago (I don't know how many thousands of posts were before then). This is not a maximum indicator of his following, as many listeners to "radio" do not always sign up on the related forum. Various searches on YouTube with appropriately combined keywords related to Sean, RantRadio/Media, NewsReal, Patrolling, SKTFM yield more than 100 each [1][2][3]. Sean Kennedy is the primary voice behind their name, so it can be said that RantMedia's popularity is because of him, indicating the need for his own article.
- Amazon & Lulu sell his book: The Scabbed Wings Of Abaddon (ISBN: 978-1-4303-1620-6)
- ...though of course this article is about him, not his book. The fact that his book is sold (and people BUY it) through THE major online retailer of books should most certainly mean something for his significance. He has three books (two full-length, one comic) available for free or sale on their website and is working on a third full-length.
- He's had MANY online video/audio shows over the last ten years, some of which are available for sale on DVD via their website and tend to sell out quickly.
- A referential list of media appearances over a five year span can be found here, with links to original articles.
- ...including a Wired article from 7/28/2000 [4] with an audio interview, and a Vancouver Sun article from 9/9/2000 [5][6].
- One of his shows "NewsReal" is syndicated on seven radio stations [7], including his own: RantRadio Talk, Osprey Radio, SRN One, Wild Bunch Radio, WNY Media Network, KJAG Radio, PureRockRadio.
- There is no valid reason for this article's deletion. If we use Victoriagirl's argument for deletion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Bottle too Far, for example, the fact that Sean's Abaddon book alone passes her tests:
- I am not Sean Kennedy, and though I've had battling issues in the past with people that disagree with me, I am clearly not a "single purpose account". These arguments were used before by wiki-police on previous AfD pages.
Not to mention that obviously Sean is NOT a hoax and the legitimate attempts at repeated resurrection of his article (i.e.: not as a result of vandalism) multinationally by completely different people is enough proof of his mainstay as an Internet icon, is it not? He's been around for ten years, and he's not going anywhere. Your mention of not being "included in the Library and Archives Canada" is a moot point. Simply because a music group is not inducted into the "Rock & Roll Hall of Fame" does not make a band any less of a band; they just weren't chosen. For the sheer gritty content Sean provides, I'd imagine potentially biased media (a library of "scholarly"/"historical" works included) would not be so eager to choose to include his works. That in itself should not be grounds for inclusion/exclusion from the Project. My purpose of a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument was reasonable, though hasty, and I also rather suggest the possibility here of WP:BIAS:
- Generally, this project concentrates upon remedying omissions rather than on either (1) protesting inappropriate inclusions -- Sean's popularity is undeniable. I've already stated my reasons why; therefore his inclusion is appropriate.
- Wikipedians are people that have enough free time to participate in the project. The points of view of editors focused on other projects, e.g. work or personal life, will be under-represented -- generally we aren't the wikipedia-type of people, and we typically fall under the "work or personal life" category. The majority of people voting "delete" on the article two years ago (before his book had an ISBN number and was available for sale at a major retailer) don't appear to be the type of people that would gel with his mindset.
- ...articles about or involving issues of interest to the so-called underclasses are unlikely to be created or, once created, are unlikely to survive a deletion review on grounds of notability
- The issue of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Kennedy (2nd nomination): looking like a vanity page has clearly been addressed as the entire article has been written and edited with a WP:NPOV.
The issue of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Kennedy (Author): fails notability has been addressed numerous times (sale of book through appropriate means, search engine popularity, etc.). Verifiable references are abundant. Finally, your issue of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Kennedy (Writer): the subject of successful AfD nominations in recent months can be easily addressed two years later with simply WP:CCC#Consensus can change. The entire existence of this page, despite VERY MANY VALID points that it should exist, is apparently hinging on whether it is included in the "Library and Archives Canada". CelticWonder (talk • contribs) 18:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'll begin by addressing the proposal of a "potential WP:Conflict of interest" made by CelticWonder. Leaving aside the fact that this is not the appropriate place for such a charge, I point out that twice nominating an article for deletion in no way meets the definition of a conflict of interest. I will return to the selective quote he provides later.
First, as it concerns COI, I'd like to address the first of the two quotes from "others that appear reluctant to participate on WP (yet) regarding this issue" that CelticWonder has seen fit to post:
- I am not from Vancouver.
- I do not have "an axe to grind with Sean" (whom I do not know).
- Even the most casual glance at my history would reveal that I've participated in dozens - perhaps hundreds - of deletion debates.
- I have at no point written "Your new evidence doesn't refute my assertions".
- I have never said "It's still not in the LAC" - though I have noted such.
- I have never mentioned the Library of Congress.
- As previous the AfDs indicate [8] [9][10]I am far from "he ONLY one who objects to this article".
- Returning to the aforementioned quote, which CelticWonder has edited to read: "I'm afraid a 200-word Wired article from 2000 .. doesn't quite make the grade." These words, pulled from the AfD of April 2007 read in full: "Speedy delete as repost. Subject still fails WP:BIO. I'm afraid a 200-word Wired article from 2000 and a four year old piece from a free computer tabloid don't quite make the grade. I note the two "books" discussed in the article are not included at Library and Archives Canada (a must for titles published in this country), nor are they recognized by any of the online retailers and used book searches I checked. The Toronto Public Library (the largest in the country) doesn't carry either title, nor do any of the libraries at the University of Toronto (the largest academic collection in Canada)." My point then, as now, is that Kennedy has received next to no coverage from reliable sources (this has nothing to do with the age of the article). As my observation about LAC has been brought forward time and again I think it important to make it clear that the article then under discussion stated that Kennedy had published two books - and yet these were not recognized by any library search or on-line bookseller. The subject has since published one of these through Lulu.com and it is available on Amazon (one of over 26,000 Lulu titles listed by the retailer, ranked 1,111,627). Neither fact confers notability.
The comparison with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Bottle too Far (the existence of which counters earlier claims about my history) is irrelevant: it concerns a book, while this concerns a BLP. Contrary to CelticWonder's bold assertion, no one has ever claimed Sean Kennedy to be a hoax, no one has suggested that CelticWonder is Sean Kennedy and no one has described CelticWonder as a single purpose account. I'll leave off by repeating Spataz's request, would CelticWonder please"point us in the direction of the non-trivial secondary sources for this person that meet RS so that we can consider this under our guidelines and polices." Victoriagirl (talk) 21:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Keeping in mind that I clearly did not write those two quotes, the one by 2xMakina simply suggested the possibility of reasonable doubt in your repeated selection for deletion of this article, thereby a conflict of interest in that your bias may be swaying the swift "speedy delete" you attached to this article not 1.5 hours after it was posted. So...
- I didn't say you were from Vancouver (you're from Vancouver Island, which is across from Vancouver.)
- ...but I will second that "Maybe " you do have "an axe to grind with Sean" (either personally or with his mindset -- no one can "prove" this but you, of course, but evidence that you were involved with multiple requests for deletion, including specifically this topic of a clearly notable figure two years after the last request, suggests this possibility.)
- "Your new evidence doesn't refute my assertions" was a paraphrase of your comments on the discussion page, which were deleted so we can't quote your utterances here, and the futile argument of semantics regarding the "Library of Congress" was obviously his misreading.
- I have never said "It's still not in the LAC" - though I have noted such. Yes you did. On the current discussion page for this article before it was deleted. Your primary focus was this matter, despite it being a moot point, and not a requirement for a published book to be considered "notable".
- And true, you are far from "he ONLY one who objects to this article", but you started two of the four total AfD (citing that it has "been the subject of successful AfD nominations", and you voted speedy delete on another. WP:CCC#Consensus can change, and as I've already stated with plenty of evidence, Sean represents WP:Notability (people) fully, just supposedly not enough for you.
- You say Kennedy has received next to no coverage from reliable sources yet there's proof ALL OVER THE PLACE that you are STILL BLATANTLY IGNORING: [11] [12] -- both include links to original articles or scans (if the original page isn't available). CelticWonder (talk • contribs) 17:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Removed level heading that was messing up page format. Please can the nominator read WP:N, WP:BIO & WP:RS and point us in the direction of the non-trivial secondary sources for this person that meet RS so that we can consider this under our guidelines and polices. Thanks. Spartaz Humbug! 18:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak oppose deletion. First off, a little effort should be taken to incorporate as many of the sources listed on that website into the article (the newspaper articles mainly) with links if possible to the original articles and not reproductions on another website. The whole cult following criterion is a bit dubious to me, but on a cursory look, this seems to qualify. The age of the articles for RS is not an issue so long as it is clear that they are referring to this guy...notability cannot be lost. I'd also rather see an article about his prime work, RantTV, since that seems to be the only source of notability for him and the sources tend to talk more about RantTV than him. His book being on amazon is absolutely not a valid claim to notability...amazon aims towards having everything, not everything worth having. I am also loathe to use hit counts and forum membership as indicators...a single news article that says "he has a cult following" or something like that would be much better. The article could definitely use improvement, but there seems to be a weak case for notability under WP standards here. Cquan (after the beep...) 19:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Deletion. Pretty much agree with all the points of the creator. Looked at article seems reasonably well referenced, NPOV, chap is notable. Hope this is the way to add a vote, first time I've done it. SimonTrew (talk) 19:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Notable terrestrial radio appearances has been added. CelticWonder (talk) 19:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sustain deletion. there are no real elements of a notable career here. His books are self-published and essentially unknown, whether in canada or the US. He has written some short stories, some of which were used as episodes in a radio series. He has had some interviews. He runs a radio show. Unfortunately, except for a brief article on Wired, nobody seems to have noticed in any reliable published sources. That one item is not enough to justify an article. DGG (talk) 22:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Forgive me for using your comment as an example, but it's one of many similar previous comments on AfD discussions that blindly say "I only see one article" or that "oh, he runs some radio show" like he just started two months ago. He has MULTIPLE shows (audio & video) spanning TEN YEARS, his listener base is huge, and there are MANY "Non-trivial" secondary sources as I have listed above. Notability doesn't disappear with time, and he presently continues to write & perform. CelticWonder (talk) 18:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Frankly, I consider this borderline, and therefore a matter of judgment. Different people can see this material , and judge it differently. I have found similar articles very difficult to decide on at AfD, and I am not sure about just how we should judge. I once thought that the general WP:N guideline would avoid such issues, but then it comes down to matters like "substantial" enough coverage. I don;t think that being an admin or not has much to do with the necessary judgment: everyone's opinion is equal here of such matters. I just give my own. I do not intend that anyone follow my view unless they independently agree with it. I'd like to have Stifle's full opinion on this, in fact. He's as good at this as I. DGG (talk) 07:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sustain deletion per DGG. Despite attempts to dress things up, there is no there, there. As well, nominator needs to understand the true meaning of 'Conflict of Interest' and, based on the tortured reasoning applied to Victoriagirl's alleged motivations, should be adding the word 'obfuscation' to his or her vocabulary. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 07:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep deleted. If DGG has satisfied himself that the article should not exist, that is good enough for me. Stifle (talk) 09:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'm not an administrator of Wikipedia as DGG and Stifle are, so even though I've supplied abundant evidence that Sean Kennedy is notable, ganging up on an article that should full well exist with a "keep deleted" vote simply for the notion that "what's good for him is good for me" is unfair to this voting process, is it not? CelticWonder (talk) 19:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- First, this isn't a vote. Second, I strongly suspect that Stifle is basing xyr decision on DGG's reputation. DGG doesn't come to the conclusion of deletion lightly, and if xe has (as xe did in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Kennedy (Writer)), it's a fair likelihood that a case for the contrary (that has a proper foundation in our policies and guidelines) is going to be quite difficult to make. Uncle G (talk) 16:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What Uncle G said. (And for future reference, I'll accept "he" and "his". However, for the sake of being complete and giving the article a fair chance, I have reviewed the situation de novo, and remain of the opinion that Mr. Kennedy does not meet WP:BIO at this time. Stifle (talk) 20:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - note that I've personally got material in several public libraries and in the National Archives, yet I'm almost definitely not notable. Those two criteria are not suitable demonstrations of notability - merely demonstrations that you're willing to mail them your material. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 15:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment: I find the focus on public libraries and the LAC rather puzzling. Really, all this based on a two year old observation offered as part of evidence to counter the false claim that Sean Kennedy had written two books. Since the subject continues to be raised, I think it important to correct some gross misinformation. Library and Archives Canada is not a repository for material people have been willing to mail, rather it gathers books published in Canada (whether written by Canadians or not), books concerning Canada and Canadian subjects that are published abroad and, finally, books written by Canadians that are published abroad. Kennedy's book, self-published through Lulu.com, falls into this final category. I will not speculate as to why it is not found in the LAC, nor will I comment on the attempt by CelticWarrior (above) to liken the holdings of LAC to induction in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. As public libraries have twice been mentioned now, I'll point out that AMICUS, which provides a search of 30 million records from 1300 Canadian libraries across the country (including the Vancouver Public Library in the author's hometown) has no listing for Sean Kennedy's book. Make of that what you will. Victoriagirl (talk) 17:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The Library and Archives Canada and AMICUS (one in the same as far as online presence is concerned, btw; search engines use same website), has no such requirement. Cimmerian has submitted both of Sean's released novels for inclusion yesterday at LAC, and once they have been processed at Library and Archives Canada, it is archived on a LAC server, and added to LAC's Electronic Collection then they will be viewable by the public only at selected terminals at LAC's main building in Ottawa, as per their Legal deposit procedures page. CelticWonder (talk) 17:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Search engines may use the same website, but Library and Archives Canada and the 1300 libraries covered by AMICUS are not one and the same. I think it important to add that "viewable by the public only at selected terminals at LAC's main building in Ottawa" refers specifically to the ability to access the contents of the book, and not the record. CelticWonder, I wonder whether you might clarify: what you mean by "has no such requirement", and how it is you know that Cimmerian has submitted Sean Kennedy's book to LAC. Victoriagirl (talk) 18:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Oh, you want to know "how" it is that I know? Maybe because he answers his e-mails. Wow, spo0oky... Despite ALL the evidence produced to pander to Victoriagrrrrl's lack of notability accusation, you still insist that a listing in the LAC is of utmost importance, despite his multiple books collectively being ONE of MANY of Sean's accomplishments in his TEN YEAR popularity. The reason one chooses "restricted" as opposed to "open" availability is because the books are FOR SALE. LAC doesn't seek out books written under one of those attributes, they are submitted by publishers. And responding to your earlier utterance, there was never a "false claim" made that Sean Kennedy had written two books. CelticWonder (talk) 18:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- oppose deletion - has been featured on CBC (that's Canada's national broadcaster, and Canada is this whole other country eh) and in Wired, as well as some other sources that people in the past have called "non-notable sources". That's a lot more than you'll find for other internet personalities. It's also interesting that he'd have that much coverage considering his whole thing is anti-media anti-consumerism pro-open-source bias. Frankly, I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a good argument, but you'll find more sources on Sean Kennedy than you will on the 2000 Simpsons episode articles we've got. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 15:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- edit: sorry, as above, featured in not just Wired and CBC, but also in Vancouver Sun (large daily paper for 3rd largest city in Canada), Spin Magazine (large mainstream music mag), Seattle Times, and New York Times. Obviously more exposure, and more national exposure, than most of the (for example) 100,000 indie-rock band articles that I've been trying ever so hard to get deleted over the years. Certainly doesn't really support a delete. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 22:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion. The additional sources presented are trivial references. The speedy delete, as a repost of information previously deleted without substantial improvement, is in order. —C.Fred (talk) 12:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – The speedy deletion of the article by NawlinWiki was justified, since the article was basically a word-for-word repost of the deleted version, so the only question in my mind is whether the outcome of the March 2007 AfD, and the two subsequent ones (1, 2), was correct. (By the way, if the article's text is kept in any form, including as a userfied draft, the deleted history should be restored in order to preserve attribution. The current version is a GFDL violation.)
While there does seem to be just enough coverage to make a case for notability, I am not sure whether the coverage demonstrates the notability of Sean Kennedy or of RantMedia (or RantRadio). Almost all of the coverage identified thus far, including the Wired piece and the other interviews, is about Kennedy's shows rather than about Kennedy himself. So, while I do believe that we should attempt to include some (not all) of this information in a Wikipedia article, I wonder whether a biographical article is the best means of doing that. Perhaps it might help, as Cquan suggested, to see how the article would look with the references included... –Black Falcon (Talk) 18:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion. As per DGG. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- allow creation at this point. I honestly don't see where DGG et. al. are coming from. The short Spin article is about this guy (apparently under a different name?), and other sources provide significant coverage. The COI issues are troubling, and I'm not sure (author) is exactly what he's notable for. If anyone doubts the sources, they can send it back to AfD where I strongly suspect it would be kept. The article itself is poor and could use significant trimming. Too promotional etc. Hobit (talk) 22:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion. While there are a couple of third party mentions that establish a few basic facts about the guy, most of the actual content of the article is essentially self-sourced from the subject's personal web site and his projects. It's not enough to have the third party establish that he exists and then let his website fill in all the details- we need third party sources for the complete article. The sourced material that doesn't come from the subject's own web site and sources wouldn't be enough to write more than a blurb or stub, and there doesn't appear to be potential for sourced expansion. --Clay Collier (talk) 09:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Deletion. I find myself agreeing with DGG. If this wasn't a marginal case discussion wouldn't be so complex but I think the crux of it is that nothing has changed since the original AfD. While there is media coverage, it's old (significantly older than the old AfD) and weak, with only a couple of very short snippets being about the subject rather than incidentally being involved in otherwise marginally notable activities. I would also like to note that "I'm not going anywhere. This article will stay." is a particularly bad attitude towards building a consensus based encyclopaedia. I've seen "I'm goping to argue this until I win" attempts in AfD and DRV before and it tends to result in closure comments like "WP:SNOW" and "Bad Faith Nomination". Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 10:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion - fails to meet our standards of substantial coverage. The New York Times mention, for example, is literally one sentence of text and one sentence of "I like this guy." Vanity press books from Lulu are no evidence of anything but willingness to put your name out there. There's simply no substance about this guy, least of all as "Author"! --Orange Mike | Talk 12:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Without simply using Wikipedia tutorial articles that I've read already as an answer to this question, WHAT SPECIFICALLY is it going to take for you to consider him "notable"??? There HAVE been substantial improvements to the article in the form of references to NON-TRIVIAL notability, so I am at a loss for words at this point.
- He's been asked & featured personally onto multiple radio shows including CBC twice.
- He's been in numerous magazine and newspaper articles, some referenced on the article itself. If you want all of them on there that I've listed above, I'll put them ALL on there.
- The former two points are ADDITION to the MANY shows he's had, both audio & video, over TEN YEARS, recognition due to his popularity on many websites, prominence in search engines, a populous forum, etc.
- If the abundant evidence provided isn't enough for what I believe is a strong argument against deletion, I don't know what is. He's notable (see ALL above). More than one person here is ignoring this. Why? After all the proof I've supplied here, since I can't use WP:OTHERSTUFF as an argument (though it should be, after all this tiresome defense), proponents for deletion should really take a hard look at the entire project, because there should be a mass killing of thousands of articles if THIS one doesn't qualify for inclusion. Generally, this project concentrates upon remedying omissions rather than on ... protesting inappropriate inclusions. Why has extreme deletionism become such a popular new fad over the last few years? I don't know what else to do here, so what is it you are looking for? CelticWonder (talk) 15:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Deletion: The deletion criteria seem nebulous, almost tailored, and comments like "nothing has changed since the original AfD" is patently false, as anyone who looks at the edit history of the page can plainly see. Why say something that isn't true unless it's in your best interest to do so? Or more accurately, serves an agenda? I see an active, malicious intention to suppress Mr. Kennedy and his views, and I don't fully understand the reasoning behind it; However, if someone is working so hard at finding reasons to NOT include Mr. Kennedy in Wikipedia, perhaps it bears investigating why. If the article is miscategorized, then help recategorize it instead of deleting the article out of hand. If it is poorly written, perhaps suggestions would be in order. If it lacks qualities required, then state them plainly. It appears that while SOME of this was done, not all of it was. Too much "thou shalt not" and not enough "this is how you do it," to be considered a mere administrative or quality issue. WWJMBD (talk) 05:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, [some of] the most active and established users in DRV, including people notoriously inclusionist, have all joined forces to or been coerced into !voting an endorse decision in a conspiracy that rivals only the moon landing actually taking place in a sound studio on Mars and the fact that bigfoot until recently was CFO of Lehman Brothers. Please help perpetuate the conspiracy. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 08:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, something does seem a bit odd here. Not bigfoot odd, but "not quite following WP:N" odd. Perhaps because of the nature of the topic, perhaps because of issues with the nom's behavior.
- Wired has a 15-minute interview on-line with two people, one of whom is the topic of the article. I've not listened to it. But that's got to have significant coverage.
- Spin has a short (200 word?) article as an interview with the person.
- The Vancouver sun (a significant paper) has a really long article about work done by the person and about the person himself, including a 1/2 page picture.
- Just those would generally be enough to keep an article around here as it pretty plainly meets WP:N (articles in the Vancouver Sun and Wired?). And there are a number of legitimate sources past this. I think DGG !voting against may have moved the discussion a bit far to one side. Toss in the behavior of the nom, and I think we are going to be deleting an article we shouldn't. I'd suggest the nom consider writing an article on the most notable of the radio shows. The coverage in the Sun etc. is likely more than enough to keep _that_. Hobit (talk) 09:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- After some nastiness, both on this and my talk page, I'd decided to walk away from this review. However, I see that my behaviour is now being called into question. How so? Hobit, would you please elaborate.
- I'd like to address the three examples of media coverage provided, all of which were discussed two years ago in previous AfDs [13][14][15]:
- The subject of the 2000 Wired piece is not Sean Kennedy, but Rant Radio. As Mangojuice pointed out in the second AfD nom it "says very little about this person".
- The Spin mini-interview, also from 2000, is not really "an article ABOUT Sean" (as is claimed above), but is certainly worthy of note, despite its brevity.
- The Vancouver Sun piece, again from 2000, published in a regional supplement, concerns RantRadio - not Sean Kennedy.
- In short, these articles, together with fleeting mentions in other sources cited - like the New York Times - simply don't meet the basic criteria called for by WP:BIO.
- Finally, since I have returned, I may as well address a piece of misinformation that has appeared in my absence: that "there was never a 'false claim' made that Sean Kennedy had written two books." In fact, the claim that Sean Kennedy was the author of two books was part of the April 2007 Sean Kennedy article. The questioning of the existence of the books was discussed at length in the third AfD nomination. One of the titles under discussion has since been published through Lulu.com. As it also concerns past debates, I feel it relevant to repeat the observation that CelticWonder's claim of 26 March ("I am not Sean Kennedy, and though I've had battling issues in the past with people that disagree with me, I am clearly not a 'single purpose account'. These arguments were used before by wiki-police on previous AfD pages") is false. I regret that he hasn't seen fit to correct the error. Victoriagirl (talk) 14:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Victoriagirl, I would appreciate it if you would stop wrongly insisting that people "correct their errors".
- "Self-promotion" was inappropriately cited HERE and HERE to begin the very first of MANY unnecessary AfD's, and since no one cared to pay attention to correct this grossly misleading suggestion and quash the notion that it was ever self-promotion (therefore creating an AfD page with no merit, rather than simply suggesting a cleanup), this one comment set a precedence for a string of speedy deletions that destined Sean's rightful place in WP to never have a chance.
- "Single-use account" was accusingly hinted five times as "XX has made few or no other edits outside this topic" on this page alone.
- You still refuse to accept that his radio & TV appearances attest his notability strongly.
- My reason for making the comment I made was to entertain that my arguments held merit, not to accuse YOU of making such suggestions. "multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability" has been supplied, as well as Sean's meeting the requirements to be "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded", and being "popular" enough beyond all doubt as an "entertainer - Has a large fan base AND a significant 'cult' following". Since you wish to continue the argument that he isn't in the news "enough" for his books by your standards, I repeat my proposal to everyone to move the article to Sean Kennedy (Radio personality) CelticWonder (talk) 16:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment/Question was this a speedy delete or an AfD? Hobit (talk) 09:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
![[5]](http://www.rantmedia.ca/images/media/20000909-vancouversun-part1.jpg){kind=link}
![[6]](http://www.rantmedia.ca/images/media/20000909-vancouversun-part2.jpg){kind=link}
