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. Keeper | 76 19:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Father Sebastiaan

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I'm completing this nomination for User:Olderon, as there was a bit of confusion over its initial adding to the AfD and the nomination was started about 24 minutes ago and sort of left. I have no opinion over Father Sebastiaan's notability, but I'm completing this for the other user. His justification on the old AfD was "Suspicious references, none of them are really about the author, article seams more like a commercial page with links, rather then an article of an artist. Person is not notable." I figured that since Olderon was concerned enough about the notability of the article to want to nominate it, I should help him out some. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I did some cleaning up of the article and of the sources and I found that there are things out there about FS. I'm not entirely happy with all of the sources and given that a few of these are of the "hey, look at the guy who makes the fangs", I can see where some can argue that the sources aren't really in-depth enough to be reliable. He is, however, mentioned twice in one academic text, giving credence to claims that he's a notable figure in the vampire subculture. There's just enough here to make me think he's a notable enough figure for the most part. I'd like more coverage, so I'll continue to dig.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:19, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I nominated this article, because this fang-maker artist is definitely not notable enough. All the information I could dig on him, are like Tokyogirl79 said - "hey, look at the guy who makes the fangs". This person has his own fan base, but it is not too big and it is mostly teenagers who are fond of gothic cosplay. The artist is mentioned on some gothic subculture forums and articles, but all the information is definitely non-encyclopediac. Olderon (talk) 11:00, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements made and sourcing available for further improvements. Sure this guy has a narrow field of interest, but he has been receiving coverage specifically for his eccentricities for many years... with coverage over many years in such disparate sources as Institut National de l'Audiovisuel (2006), Business Week (2010), Providence Journal (2008), People's Daily (2010), Relevant (2011), Daily Advertiser (2011), et al, appear to meet the requirements set by WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - You may want to recheck. Have a look again at the People's Daily. I don't think it is relevant. -- Whpq (talk) 18:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete First nomination on this topic was based on obvious Conflict of Interests WP:COI, but since there was no consensus, the article was kept. Now it is nominated for the same reason. User:Olderon said this article looks like a publicity page. And it actually does. What do we know about this fanger or whatever he is? He wrote couple of non-notable books on a vampire topic and was interviewed for local TV channel documentary-films that are also not really notable, since there is no trace of them on the internet what so ever, couldn't even find them on imdb. And yet I managed to look through couple of those interviews on his personal YouTube channel, and all the interviews are low-quality and talk about the subcultural parties he helped to co-organize and nothing else. Were those parties some big, unique or notable events? Not really. And all the coverage of him, that • Gene93k mentioned, also speaks only of those vampire-publicity party events and how this person (just like some others) is subculturally active. Are those coverage articles of him reliable? Yes they are in a certain aspect, but they don't stand the basic requirements of Wikipedia, because all those sources are dated NEWS articles, but Wikipedia is not a news channel WP:NOT#NEWS. The verdict is simple - this person is not notable, because he did nothing notable. Bigspray78 (talk) 11:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - NY Post, Bloomberg, and East Village all feature this guy as the primary subject. That represents multiple (I've named only 3 of the best sources for notability purposes) significant coverage (he is the primary subject of substantial articles) in independent reliable sources (all those sources are mainstream media publications) which satisfy our general notability guidelines. Any issue of conflict of interest can be dealt with through editting although I do note that at the time of nomination, I don't really see any issue with this article adhering to a neutral point of view. -- Whpq (talk) 18:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:59, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:AUTHOR and WP:BOOK. Qworty (talk) 06:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:BASIC. Source examples include: [1], [2], [3]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - However quirky, meets basic notability per Whpq and NA1K. Yes, being strange means you can get reliable sources to cover you just by saying "hey, look at this strange person". – SJ + 02:53, 24 March 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.