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. Vanamonde (Talk) 07:27, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lenwood S. Sharpe[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Little coverage from secondary sources. The article's claims to notability come from a website run by the subject and then his resume. Secondary coverage is a podcast and several brief mentions that don't come close to WP:SIGCOV. Related: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lumberwoods. hinnk (talk) 05:24, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Virginia. Shellwood (talk) 08:18, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Personal bias, willful vandalism). So I went to review hinnk's contributions thinking it was a little off that a user with few edits in the subject of fearsome critters and folklore would suggest the deletion of two adjacent articles in less than a week. I found several edits that suggest a pattern of bias against the subject of this article:

00:31, 1 September 2022 diff hist −346‎ List of vampire films ‎ non-notable, no coverage by reliable sources current
00:42, 1 September 2022 diff hist +415‎ Lumberwoods ‎ AfD: Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lumberwoods
00:37, 1 September 2022 diff hist −4,376‎ Lenwood S. Sharpe ‎ redirecting to Lumberwoods, little significant coverage outside of WP:SELFPUBLISH articles Tags: New redirect Reverted
05:06, 5 September 2022 diff hist +427‎ Lenwood S. Sharpe ‎ AfD: Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lenwood S. Sharpe current

The first of these was the removal of a film by Lenwood S. Sharpe, Lamp the Movie (That Really Shouldn't Exist); *A Dracula Film, from the article List of vampire films. Afterwards, hinnk went about making a series of edits to remove any content from Wikipedia related to that film's creator (Lumberwoods is a virtual museum directed by Lenwood S. Sharpe). Now, I do not think all of hinnk's point are invalid. The article could certainly use improvement. But I do feel hinnk's motivation for removing Wikipedia content does constitute "malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view." However, hinnk has made significant contributions to Wikipedia, and I feel this is likely a one-off matter warranting merely a warning. As for the claims of notability, "Sharpe compiled the most comprehensive catalog on fearsome critters of North American folklore" the website referenced is ranked third in a Google search for fearsome critters. I do firmly believe this information is accurate, but it would benefit from secondary sources. Overall, I do not feel deletion can proceed given the circumstances surrounding the proposal (i.e. not liking a bad movie). Similar to the consensus in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lumberwoods, I think it would be better to to add more-citations-needed template and go from there. Tripodero (talk) 15:46:49, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I keep getting these responses that give highly unusual policy interpretations before veering off the topic at hand. It's hard to follow, and it ends up reading like you're mischaracterizing a content dispute as a conduct dispute to obscure just how loose you're being with WP:GNG. I mean, how would you like me to interpret the excerpt you're using to establish notability being cited to the subject himself? How seriously would you take someone who did that, while representing a content dispute with you as vandalism? I'd invite you to take some time and review the relevant guidelines (WP:N, specifically WP:SIGCOV, and WP:V, specifically WP:BURDEN). hinnk (talk) 03:12, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Were you planning on disclosing that, according to your old user page, you are the subject of this article? hinnk (talk) 06:50, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I have absolutely no issue with that. Hi everyone, I'm Lenwood S. Sharpe. Honestly, you could have saved yourself quite a bit of research there if you just asked me to clarify. But to be clear, I have two accounts on Wikipedia. One personal use and another for uploading media I release into the public domain. The second one is to verify authorship for purposes of the copyright waiver, as these are released in the public domain under the operating name "Thrill Land" not my own. As for the other two users you have outlined elsewhere I do not know. They could be visitors of the site or persons with a passing interest in fearsome critters. Now, I have nothing to do with neither the Lumberwoods article nor this present one. Admittedly, I've wanted to remove the description of me as a "game designer" for quite sometime, but I've resisted the temptation to edit. I did think, however, I was allowed to participate in this discussion, so I did. You may correct me if this is incorrect. Nevertheless, I feel the points raised are still valid. I'm don't believe I'm stopping anyone from deleting this article, but still feel it's a little off process to delete the article without a notice placed on the article was my point. Tripodero (talk) 16:59, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tripodero: While legitimate alternative accounts are allowed, it is recommended that you disclose the names of your alternative accounts, unless doing so would defeat the purpose of the legitimate account. In your case (where the alternative account exists solely to associate the named account with the name of the copyright holder), disclosing the names would not defeat that purpose and is recommended. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:20, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I went ahead and made a note on my user page for future reference. Tripodero (talk) 18:29, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Not a single WP:SECONDARY source in what is WP:BLP. Refs are mix of sps sources, other sundry sources, all unrelated to proving the individual is notable. Fails WP:SIGCOV scope_creep^Talk 08:10, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sharpe is one of the millions of internet users who has created a bit of a niche: writing about fearsome critters and other campfire lore. Nothing in the article lays a credible claim of notability and none of the cited references are significant. Google searches provide no significant hits either. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:56, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no claim to notability whatsover. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:02, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any RS for this entry. In the article, most sources are podcasts (not considered RS in most circumstances), his own content (e.g. "Thrill Land" and "Fearsome Critter"). The one possible RS is Wausau Daily Herald, but this is a mere mention. Lamona (talk) 04:30, 8 September 2022 (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.