| Revision as of 21:19, 17 February 2008 editMikeWazowski (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users33,732 edits →Christopher Knight (filmmaker)← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:33, 18 February 2008 edit undoPercynickety (talk | contribs)1 edit →Christopher Knight (filmmaker)Next edit → | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| :::''''Comment'''' - Wall Street Journal, Wired, ZDNet, San Jose Mercury News, Ars Technica and New York Times are not reliable sources? ] (]) 21:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC) | :::''''Comment'''' - Wall Street Journal, Wired, ZDNet, San Jose Mercury News, Ars Technica and New York Times are not reliable sources? ] (]) 21:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ::::Had they been links to actual news articles, that would be one thing. Blogs affiliated with those entities are questionable, as they are generally written without editorial oversight. I'm just saying, please read up on what kinds of sources are acceptable over what kinds are not. ] (]) 21:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC) | ::::Had they been links to actual news articles, that would be one thing. Blogs affiliated with those entities are questionable, as they are generally written without editorial oversight. I'm just saying, please read up on what kinds of sources are acceptable over what kinds are not. ] (]) 21:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :'''Keep''' – Request for article deletion is a ]. Person requesting deletion is thought to be ] formerly known as Misplaced Pages editor TheRealFennShysa or a person in association with John Hudgens. Hudgens has demonstrated reckless public personal bias against Christopher Knight in the past including proven use of employer's property to post Internet slander against Knight while feigning self identity. Evidence that John Hudgens or an associate is MikeWazowski - ]. ]. ]. MikeWazowski ] on which John Hudgens is a staff member. Close affiliation between person requesting deletion of article and an individual who has publicaly expressed animosity toward subject of article makes the request to delete highly suspicious. ] (]) 04:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 04:33, 18 February 2008
Christopher Knight (filmmaker)
- Christopher Knight (filmmaker) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Article reads like self-promotion vanity entry for a minor blogger and YouTube artist. Almost all references are to the individual's personal site or other blogs. While there are some claims of notability, subject does not appear to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Fails WP:BIO, recommend Delete. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Weak Delete with the two other prominent people (LA Times Art Critic and Brady Bunch Star) it's hard to filter but this appears to be the only coverage of the article's subject. If more coverage can be find, I'd change my !vote. Travellingcari (talk) 17:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)Change to keep per sources identified below. Article still needs to be re-written to add the sources. Travellingcari (talk) 20:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)- Keep - Notable given many major sources. See, e.g. and . However, as an internet meme, per our convention here on such things the article should be refocused and renamed to be about the phenomenon rather than the person, unless the person himself has any independent notability.Wikidemo (talk) 19:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - The commercial alone earned the individual considerable visibility but the copyright infringement claim that Viacom pressed against Knight and that he won gained him even more and in the interest of Misplaced Pages represents a noteworthy legal precedent regarding digital media and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The individual and his case received significant news coverage in: ABC News, The Wall Street Journal, Wired, Slashdot, ZDNet.com, IMDB Movie News, The San Jose Mercury News, CNET News, Ars Technica, Yahoo! News, Spiegel Online demonstrating international interest in the case, and other major outlets. Also will recommend keeping the article "as is" on grounds that the original work and its peculiar circumstance merits consideration of status other than "meme". Further this person was a candidate for political office whose originality and creative campaign was cited by The New York Times and several other media outlets, which refutes the original claim that the article fails Misplaced Pages's standards for biography. In addition some of the individual's other widely cited creative contributions have received considerable and official recognition: Midi-chlorians article for TheForce.net and his work toward TRANSFORMERS: The Score that was recognized by Warner Records, in addition to others. SChadwell84 (talk) 19:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - While the subject may have received some news coverage, one event does not make a person notable, as in this case, where the majority of the coverage is trivial mebtions. As to the sources you provided, you need to familiarize yourself with Misplaced Pages's policy on reliable sources, many of which your provided sources do not meet. Your links to the Wall Street Journal, Wired, Slashdot, ZDNet, Ars Technica, the San Jose Mercury News, and Yahoo are all blog entries, which are not acceptable as reliable sources. The ABC article contains mention of Knight in passing on the fourth page - hardly major coverage. I would also hesitate to label Knight as an internet meme, since his sole claim to fame is a passing mention connected to a bonehead move by Viacom - something that was over and done with within a few days, and then forgotten by the internet at large. As to the other claims of notability, I hardly think an essay on a fansite is notable, nor has this editor offered any reasons or evidence as to why he believes it to be so. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- 'Comment' - Wall Street Journal, Wired, ZDNet, San Jose Mercury News, Ars Technica and New York Times are not reliable sources? SChadwell84 (talk) 21:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Had they been links to actual news articles, that would be one thing. Blogs affiliated with those entities are questionable, as they are generally written without editorial oversight. I'm just saying, please read up on what kinds of sources are acceptable over what kinds are not. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- 'Comment' - Wall Street Journal, Wired, ZDNet, San Jose Mercury News, Ars Technica and New York Times are not reliable sources? SChadwell84 (talk) 21:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - While the subject may have received some news coverage, one event does not make a person notable, as in this case, where the majority of the coverage is trivial mebtions. As to the sources you provided, you need to familiarize yourself with Misplaced Pages's policy on reliable sources, many of which your provided sources do not meet. Your links to the Wall Street Journal, Wired, Slashdot, ZDNet, Ars Technica, the San Jose Mercury News, and Yahoo are all blog entries, which are not acceptable as reliable sources. The ABC article contains mention of Knight in passing on the fourth page - hardly major coverage. I would also hesitate to label Knight as an internet meme, since his sole claim to fame is a passing mention connected to a bonehead move by Viacom - something that was over and done with within a few days, and then forgotten by the internet at large. As to the other claims of notability, I hardly think an essay on a fansite is notable, nor has this editor offered any reasons or evidence as to why he believes it to be so. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep – Request for article deletion is a . Person requesting deletion is thought to be John_E._Hudgens formerly known as Misplaced Pages editor TheRealFennShysa or a person in association with John Hudgens. Hudgens has demonstrated reckless public personal bias against Christopher Knight in the past including proven use of employer's property to post Internet slander against Knight while feigning self identity. Evidence that John Hudgens or an associate is MikeWazowski - . . . MikeWazowski on which John Hudgens is a staff member. Close affiliation between person requesting deletion of article and an individual who has publicaly expressed animosity toward subject of article makes the request to delete highly suspicious. Percynickety (talk) 04:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)