Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kris Krug

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. Arguments on this side were based more strongly in policy.. Tan | 39 01:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kris Krug

Kris Krug (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet notability guidelines. Article displays simple WP:BOMBARDMENT in an attempt to establish notability. Of the 21 references which make the article appear really "fleshed-out," none are reliable third-party sources on the subject, Kris Krug. Eight of them are actually just links to the subject's flickr photos! Most of the rest are links to websites he's involved with (or blogs he's written) that in no way establish his objective notability. Oh, and there are a couple sites which have his photographs on them. This would be like declaring a police officer notable because he's arrested people. Don't know what else to say; just read the article, reads as a WP:PROMOTION. Plus, as a corollary, recently this reeks of promotion: Special:Contributions/SylviaBoBilvia, adding his photos all over the wiki and linking back to this article (in the main namespace, where photos aren't supposed to be attributed as such), even if they don't fit in an encyclopedic style (Matt Good picture, versus the old Matt Good picture. And then, even when it's removed from the page by other editors, it's just re-added: example on Billy Bragg. The whole situation just reeks of promotion. Check the "What Links Here" to see more examples. Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 23:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As of now, I've delinked the most egregiously promotional "back-links," so "What Links Here" won't work as great....
Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 04:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the fact that the material is poorly presented does not make it non-notable; neither does the fact that some of the article needs to be deleted say anything about the remainder of the content. The man's verifiably a published author and a published photographer who's had his work featured in multiple notable publications. The article badly needs a cleanup, but I don't think it merits deletion. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Is he verifiably a published author of a notable book? What are the multiple notable publications? The only one I see is New York Press which is uncited (should be easily citable). Oh, and a whole bunch of blogs, which look very nicely sourced, but just link to the blogs. There are no reliable third-party assertions of his notability. Links to his pictures (especially 8 links to his flickr page) don't notability make....
Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 00:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If notability guidelines contained a category for self-promotion, this article would be a sure inclusion. Krug has certainly pushed the limits of how far one can achieve reknown for one's own efforts. Unfortunately, the standards for article inclusion do not anticipate self-marketing efforts. Here are what the notability standard for creative professionals do provide:

1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.

2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. 3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

4. The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries.

Frankly, as demonstrated through the article, Krug does not yet achieve notability on any of the four points. To paraphrase, Krug does not show that he has wide recognition from his peers; he has not originated new techniques; created a significant body of work; and is not represented in several notable musuems. Krug may yet achieve this acclaim, but his work has not done this to date. As such, I feel the article should be deleted without prejudice to a future re-creation when he can demonstrated notability. TheMindsEye (talk) 02:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - [1], [2], [3], and [4] would indicate he is notable. The severe COI is an issue but not a reason for deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 15:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first and third of those do look interesting. The fourth seems to say no more than that Bittorrent is handy and that Krug wrote a book about it (two facts we already knew) and I don't know what the second one says other than that the man has a busy e-social [?] life. -- Hoary (talk) 15:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You will note that my keep is a "weak" one. The sources aren't the strongest. I'd say the Georgia Straight is probably the strongest in terms of supporting notability. And authoring a book in the Dummies series adds to it. That's all that I was trying to demonstrate. Taken altogether, it clears the notability bar for me. We do need to separate issues of editting with issues of notability. Regardless of the current deplorable state of the article, we need to judge is based on the evidence for notability. Removing excessive puffery doesn't require deletion if the subject is notable. -- Whpq (talk) 16:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - I'm saying this as a local: if a lifestyle interview in the Georgia Straight is perhaps the "strongest" assertion of notability someone has, then they're not that notable on an encyclopedic scale. I still think we have yet to come across anything "meaty" in terms of significance. Based on the bombardment the article already displays, I'm sure if there was anything really good it would already be in there. As Hoary says below, there is no "commentary by disinterested others." Someone like Gary Korpan (another local) is way more significant (and is mentioned in way more and better sources), but in terms of his article in this encyclopedia is just about where he should be. This "Kris Krug" just happens to network and work all over the internet, and thus he can be made to appear somewhat significant by a bunch of purely second-rate online sources. Reliable, third-party? Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 22:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia should not be used for people to astroturf or self promote, and it is clear this is another example of someone attempting to force themselves into the mainstream world via Wiki. --WngLdr34 (talk) 16:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've looked again at the first and third of the sources proffered by Whpq, which are the best things I've seen so far. The third is a description of intentions. The first is unintentionally revealing: in its first part, Krug talks about the importance of dotting the web with references to yourself; in the second, he describes his intentions; in the third, he discusses his photography; by the time I embarked on the fourth, I was dozing off. What I'd like to see is commentary by disinterested others on what Krug has done so far; I don't see it. -- Hoary (talk) 01:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tony Fox (arf!) 18:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - I opted to relist this as I think there are some good points to each side of the discussion, and would prefer to allow some more discussion before any final action is taken, to help reach a more clear consensus. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Of the sources I listed above, #1, and #3 represent the best sourcing for notability that I have been able to find. #1 is an article from the Georgia Straight. This is a free weekly news and entertainment paper circulated in the Vancouver area. As such it's a local paper, but Vancouver is a large population centre in Canada so it does have a wide reach. #3 is Business in Vancouver. I'm not familiar with this publication but it is also focused on the Vancouver area. So once again, this can be argued to be local coverage. For me, the fact that this is local coverage does not tip the notability balance to the delete side because the Greater Vancouver area has a population in excess of 2 million. So I don't think being a local publication is a big deal. Other editors may not hold the same opinion. Note, my keep opion is still a weak one. That is, I've not changed my mind. -- Whpq (talk) 19:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the pessimal vote, weak delete. Wphq came up with some good ones, but as Hoary pointed out, they note his intentions (which to me tips the balance in the first place). There's some OK notability out there, but not much of it, and IMO, not enough to meet WP:N, regretfully. The COI for this purpose can be ignored, because it's theoretically fixable - but in Mr. Krug's case, there isn't enough in the way of reliable sources to do that. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete everything except [5] seems to be trivial or non-indepedant coverage, but as there's been so much WP:BOMBARDMENT (as nom mentioned) and WP:PUFFERY, it makes it very difficult to whether he is notable or not.--Otterathome (talk) 20:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per PBS coverage, conference organizing/panels, photos published in notable venues like Rolling Stone. Sourcing should be improved, but it doesn't require deletion.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. God help us the day that anyone who ever had a picture published in a notable magazine becomes notable himself. Armigo (talk) 16:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I see a lot of fluff and not much that could help pass WP:CREATIVE. A few of his photos have been published in notable publications, but that doesn't translate into nontrivial coverage of the photographer himself. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Krug is used as an example, not an authority, in the RS articles related to a new way of working. There's absolutely nothing to indicate any of his work is significant enough to justify the excessive detail and linking to about pretty much everything he's ever done. And having some work published at a Rolling Stone online or "used with permission" by a LA Times blog is not the same as being a significant, recognized contributor or the subject of significant news coverage. Flowanda | Talk 09:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The self-promotion is over-the-top, but the proper solution is editing, not deletion. More than one photo layout in the LA Times may be enough on its own, and there's more. I understand the WP disdain for personal blogs, but a blog run by one of the largest newpapers is in a differnt category.--SPhilbrickT 18:17, 9 October 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kris_Krug&oldid=1144602891"