Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Kennedy (Author)
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. Majorly (hot!) 20:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sean Kennedy (Author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Fails notability, previously voted to delete as Sean Kennedy ---- Bennie Noakes 19:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per db-repost. See previous deletion discussion. This is the same person with a different article title. RJASE1 Talk 20:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete: Per nom. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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).Victoriagirl 20:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you actually follow the link you'll find that this "200 word Wired article" is accompanied by 15 minutes of audio interview, of Kennedy and O'Brien. Please check it out. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, WP:BIO's second paragraph states clearly "This guideline is not Wikipedia policy (and indeed the whole concept of notability is contentious). However, it is the opinion of many, but not all, Wikipedians that these criteria are a fair test of whether a person or related group of people has sufficient external notice to ensure that they can be covered from a neutral point of view based on verifiable information from reliable sources, without straying into original research (all of which are formal policies)." Should we keep that in mind? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- With all due respect, I'm quite aware of WP:BIO and would never so much as consider participating in an AfD vote or discussion were I not. Rest assured, I have kept in mind the paragraph you have quoted. Victoriagirl 17:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So, if you don't mind me asking, precisely why do you consider that the article is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia? Do you disagree with the opinion that the man has a following, as well as the opinion that the man has made unique contributions to his field (the 2-Way ICQ during radio broadcasts, the style of the 'rants'), as well as the opinion that the man is known for originating new concepts (Server as a god, Xenu's Wog Mecha, each of the Klans, and other such memes?). If any of the above opinions can be supported, the article should be kept. It's natural that there should not be a large amount of 'mainstream' coverage of Kennedy, as he considers the concept of 'mainstream' itself to be dangerous and controlling, however, this doesn't mean that he has nothing to contribute to the Sum Of Human Knowledge(TM). OldMixcoatl 18:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)— OldMixcoatl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- The article is not suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia as it is a reconstruction of an entry deleted three weeks earlier - as such it runs counter to Wikipedia policy. While some may disagree with the decision, it is not appropriate to simply reintroduce the article. Victoriagirl 22:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- While I appreciate this, and I do apologise as the creator of the updated article (being new to this place and not having seen the second discussion under AfD), it seems that a number of mistakes were made as well as my own. Firstly, the article was submitted here instead of under deletion review. Secondly, people voted for speedy delete, despite the fact that it doesn't fit the criteria. From below, provided that the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any revisions made clearly do not address the reasons for which the page was deleted. The and instead of an or means that if the revisions made do not address the reasons for which the page was deleted but the copy is not substantially identical the article does not fit the criteria for speedy deletion.
In which case I ask you, even assuming that Sean Kennedy has received absolutely no recognition from third party news sources, assuming that all his writing is, due it being self-published, critically void (both assumptions I strongly disagree with), is the article not warranted due to any of the three points raised above? OldMixcoatl 05:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)— OldMixcoatl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]- Comment At the risk of appearing to bite a newby, I must correct OldMixcoatl. In fact, DanDud88 was the creator of the article. When reintroduced, the article clearly failed to address WP:NOTE, the reason it had been deleted three weeks earlier (in fact, not a single reference was provided). In my opinion, further editing has not rectified this situation. Whether or not it meets the criteria for WP:SPEEDY rests on how much one verson owes to the other; a moot point, I suppose, as it wasn't nominated for Speedy Deletion in the first place. To address your final paragraph, OldMixcoatl - I have never made the claim that Kennedy's work is "critically void". My issue with his books - which I now learn are self-published - is this: there is no way to verify that they actually exist. Even self-published books are supposed to be deposited with Library and Archives Canada - and yet the books are not listed at that institution, nor at the Vancouver Public Library, nor at the libraries of the University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University. All this speaks to verifiability and, by extension, WP:NOTE. In short, how are we to create an article without being able to cite verifiable, authoritative sources? While I recognize that Sean Kennedy might be considered outside the mainstream, I must wonder why it is that not one of Vancouver's alternative papers has seen fit to publish an article on the man. If he is indeed known for originating new concepts, as you've written above, citations should be easy to provide. As it stands, I think Sean Kennedy is best discussed within the Wikipedia entry on Rant Media. Victoriagirl 17:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As it happens, this [1] was the edit in which I created the current article, under Sean Kennedy. DanDud88 copied the article into Sean Kennedy (Author) as part of his creation of the disambiguation page. But this is a minor point, and I had forgotten there was an (in my opinion) far worse article about the same person under Sean Kennedy before I made mine.OldMixcoatl 23:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment My apologies to OldMixcoatl and DanDud88. It would appear that an article on the Sean Kennedy under discussion was first reintroduced by Grimtrekkie at 19:27, 3 April 2007. It was completely rewritten by OldMixcoatl six hours later. Victoriagirl 00:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As another sidenote, a version of The Scabbed Wings Of Abbadon can be found here:[], while an audio book of The Bloodstained Rabbit can be found here: [].OldMixcoatl 00:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment While I appreciate the effort, I must point out that these are simply audio downloads. The article states that Kennedy is the author of two books. Victoriagirl 00:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well, the link provided to Scabbed Wings is a zipped pdf file, rather than an audio file. I can't find the Bloodstained Rabbit in pdf, unfortunately no-one has scanned it in, and it was a very limited run ([2]) which has sold out. There are a couple blog entries and the like about receiving the text novel (e.g. [3]).OldMixcoatl 01:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't mean to be a stickler, but audio and text files aren't books. I note that the Rant Media website indicated Scabbed Wings as a forthcoming publication, which pretty well expains why I haven't been able to find any library records. This, of course, leaves The Bloodstained Rabbit. Recognizing that blogs are "largely not acceptable as sources", I put it that there must be some third party source indicating that it was actually published. Was there not one book review? Did no copy make it into any library? Victoriagirl 03:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is somewhat amusing considering I'm looking at Bloodstained on my shelf right now. I did see someone say somewhere on the Rant forums I believe that they donated it to their local library. Tracking it down is not made easier by the fact that it has no ISBN, a feature Scabbed Wings will have when it is out later this month, so I understand. If I can be of some assistance in proving that the book is, in fact, in print and on my shelf please let me know. CodingRooster— CodingRooster (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment While it's my opinion that The Bloodstained Rabbit was published as a book, what we are looking for here are verifiable facts. The issue is that no source has yet been found to prove that the book exists. I point to this problem as it speaks volumes to notability. In short, I wonder why it is that a book published by a man who has such a "significant cult following" (as claimed on this page) has never been so much as mentioned in the alternative media, mainstream media or academic press. Victoriagirl 02:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is somewhat amusing considering I'm looking at Bloodstained on my shelf right now. I did see someone say somewhere on the Rant forums I believe that they donated it to their local library. Tracking it down is not made easier by the fact that it has no ISBN, a feature Scabbed Wings will have when it is out later this month, so I understand. If I can be of some assistance in proving that the book is, in fact, in print and on my shelf please let me know. CodingRooster— CodingRooster (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment I don't mean to be a stickler, but audio and text files aren't books. I note that the Rant Media website indicated Scabbed Wings as a forthcoming publication, which pretty well expains why I haven't been able to find any library records. This, of course, leaves The Bloodstained Rabbit. Recognizing that blogs are "largely not acceptable as sources", I put it that there must be some third party source indicating that it was actually published. Was there not one book review? Did no copy make it into any library? Victoriagirl 03:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well, the link provided to Scabbed Wings is a zipped pdf file, rather than an audio file. I can't find the Bloodstained Rabbit in pdf, unfortunately no-one has scanned it in, and it was a very limited run ([2]) which has sold out. There are a couple blog entries and the like about receiving the text novel (e.g. [3]).OldMixcoatl 01:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment While I appreciate the effort, I must point out that these are simply audio downloads. The article states that Kennedy is the author of two books. Victoriagirl 00:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As it happens, this [1] was the edit in which I created the current article, under Sean Kennedy. DanDud88 copied the article into Sean Kennedy (Author) as part of his creation of the disambiguation page. But this is a minor point, and I had forgotten there was an (in my opinion) far worse article about the same person under Sean Kennedy before I made mine.OldMixcoatl 23:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment At the risk of appearing to bite a newby, I must correct OldMixcoatl. In fact, DanDud88 was the creator of the article. When reintroduced, the article clearly failed to address WP:NOTE, the reason it had been deleted three weeks earlier (in fact, not a single reference was provided). In my opinion, further editing has not rectified this situation. Whether or not it meets the criteria for WP:SPEEDY rests on how much one verson owes to the other; a moot point, I suppose, as it wasn't nominated for Speedy Deletion in the first place. To address your final paragraph, OldMixcoatl - I have never made the claim that Kennedy's work is "critically void". My issue with his books - which I now learn are self-published - is this: there is no way to verify that they actually exist. Even self-published books are supposed to be deposited with Library and Archives Canada - and yet the books are not listed at that institution, nor at the Vancouver Public Library, nor at the libraries of the University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University. All this speaks to verifiability and, by extension, WP:NOTE. In short, how are we to create an article without being able to cite verifiable, authoritative sources? While I recognize that Sean Kennedy might be considered outside the mainstream, I must wonder why it is that not one of Vancouver's alternative papers has seen fit to publish an article on the man. If he is indeed known for originating new concepts, as you've written above, citations should be easy to provide. As it stands, I think Sean Kennedy is best discussed within the Wikipedia entry on Rant Media. Victoriagirl 17:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- While I appreciate this, and I do apologise as the creator of the updated article (being new to this place and not having seen the second discussion under AfD), it seems that a number of mistakes were made as well as my own. Firstly, the article was submitted here instead of under deletion review. Secondly, people voted for speedy delete, despite the fact that it doesn't fit the criteria. From below, provided that the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any revisions made clearly do not address the reasons for which the page was deleted. The and instead of an or means that if the revisions made do not address the reasons for which the page was deleted but the copy is not substantially identical the article does not fit the criteria for speedy deletion.
- The article is not suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia as it is a reconstruction of an entry deleted three weeks earlier - as such it runs counter to Wikipedia policy. While some may disagree with the decision, it is not appropriate to simply reintroduce the article. Victoriagirl 22:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So, if you don't mind me asking, precisely why do you consider that the article is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia? Do you disagree with the opinion that the man has a following, as well as the opinion that the man has made unique contributions to his field (the 2-Way ICQ during radio broadcasts, the style of the 'rants'), as well as the opinion that the man is known for originating new concepts (Server as a god, Xenu's Wog Mecha, each of the Klans, and other such memes?). If any of the above opinions can be supported, the article should be kept. It's natural that there should not be a large amount of 'mainstream' coverage of Kennedy, as he considers the concept of 'mainstream' itself to be dangerous and controlling, however, this doesn't mean that he has nothing to contribute to the Sum Of Human Knowledge(TM). OldMixcoatl 18:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)— OldMixcoatl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- With all due respect, I'm quite aware of WP:BIO and would never so much as consider participating in an AfD vote or discussion were I not. Rest assured, I have kept in mind the paragraph you have quoted. Victoriagirl 17:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What about the Vancover sun http://rantmedia.ca/pics/media/vansun20000909/vansunfront.jpg http://rantmedia.ca/pics/media/vansun20000909/vansunfront.jpg Theres others too http://rantmedia.ca/media.php Know1uno 4:15 PM April 11
- Comment The subject of the seven year old Vancouver Sun piece is RantRadio - in fact, RantRadio, not Sean Kennedy, is the subject of the aforementioned Wired and Computer Paper pieces. Of all the media pieces featured on the rantmedia link provided above, only one, a very brief profile from 2000, has Sean Kennedy as its focus. Victoriagirl 23:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Firstly, I don't know what criteria this could possibly fulfil for speedy deletion. According to the page concerned with the proposed deletion of the previous article: [4], no consensus was reached. Furthermore, the page was not actually deleted, rather the content was altered to refer to someone else. As to whether the article should be deleted, I'm very new to all of this, but the notability for an entertainer state that a suitable criterion is: 'Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.' I doubt anyone can argue that Sean does not have a significant cult following. Also, with a literal interpretation of the 'rules' (although I realise that due to the nature of this website the 'rules' can change at any second), as there has already been mention of one source with Kennedy as its subject ( [5] mentioned above ), here is another: [6], that while singularly uninterested in what Kennedy has to say, definitely uses him as its 'subject', therefore that provides the 'multiple published sources with the topic as its subject' needed. Of course, I realise that as this system relies on the will of the mass, rather than abiding by actual rules, the page will probably be deleted anyway, speedily, more than likely. OldMixcoatl 08:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)— OldMixcoatl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- keep - I think this article will keep re-appearing, whatever the vote result is, just because I think his fan base is rabid enough to keep it up. Now, as for the press, I don't see why the Wired article doesn't count, as it still identifies Sean Kennedy and has a few paragraphs with him as the subject - and the small feature in Spin was still a small feature in Spin. A full set of other press clippings is available at the rantmedia site, though many of those articles you won't find on the internet because those press outlets don't archive online. I'd also note he has had several speaking engagements at various Defcons - does that contribute to notability? And, if this means anything, I and someone else have both aired his "Tales from the Afternow" series at our campus station. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - since this is a repost, I'm not sure why we're even having this dicussion here, it should be over at WP:DRV. RJASE1 Talk 16:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- it's not exactly a repost, but a reconstructed article. A fair bit better than the last one that got deleted, from an NPOV standpoint. The different title, also, is because since the last deletion a few other people at Wikipedia found two other Sean Kennedies that they felt merited articles - so this one now has to be identified as "Sean Kennedy (author)". AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid the fact that the current article is not identical to that which was deleted is irrelevant. It is, as you say, a reconstruction - as such it clearly falls under the WP:SPEEDY policy. Whether or not NPOV issues have been addressed is irrelevant. the simple fact is that the original article was deleted for failing to meet WP:NOTE and nothing else. The new article fails to address this issue. Victoriagirl 17:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SPEEDY says a speedy delete is warranted for "Recreation of deleted material. A copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted via Articles for deletion or another XfD process, provided that the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any revisions made clearly do not address the reasons for which the page was deleted. This copy is substantially different from the old, and when I saw it'd been re-created I personally added the footnotes (that were never there before) to try to address WP:N. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 00:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and comment - in case anyone was wondering, I did not create this article - I just watched the empty space left after the last AfD to see how long it'd take for someone to create a new article here. And, when it came back, I tried to add some notes and clean up the language. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 00:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid the fact that the current article is not identical to that which was deleted is irrelevant. It is, as you say, a reconstruction - as such it clearly falls under the WP:SPEEDY policy. Whether or not NPOV issues have been addressed is irrelevant. the simple fact is that the original article was deleted for failing to meet WP:NOTE and nothing else. The new article fails to address this issue. Victoriagirl 17:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- it's not exactly a repost, but a reconstructed article. A fair bit better than the last one that got deleted, from an NPOV standpoint. The different title, also, is because since the last deletion a few other people at Wikipedia found two other Sean Kennedies that they felt merited articles - so this one now has to be identified as "Sean Kennedy (author)". AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I believe that this version of the page (as it exists now) is very much different from the version that was deleted and furthermore, that all of the valid objections raised regarding the original article have been solved. It may not have been proper for the initial remade page to borrow heavily from the deleted one, but let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater folks. 63.100.44.98 01:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment While I recognize the work of AllGloryToTheHypnotoad, I maintain that the new article fails to address WP:NOTE. I'm afraid a seven year-old mini-profile in Spin and vaguely described segment on Way of the Master Radio - not exactly a published source - just don't make the grade in the eyes of this girl. Victoriagirl 02:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you feel it doesn't meet WP:N with the references provided in this AfD and the article, I doubt any more is going to come to light. There is more out there on him I'm sure (apparently he was even on CBC radio, according to the article's first AfD), but it's just impossible to find. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 18:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why does it matter what the focus of the articles are? Sean is a major part of most RantRadio articles because he is its loudest voice! Even the pictre on the Sun article has Sean front and center. He is an important part of RantRadio. So what if the articile is about RantRadio if it is then it is also a little about Sean. Know1uno 10:45 April 12
- Comment That's a good point, the photos are just as published as the text of the article. So if the photo has Sean as the subject, then that's him being made the subject of a published source. OldMixcoatl 08:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment To claim that a photograph accompanying an article is in some way a separate published source is, I would argue, more than a stretch. That said, the matter is irrelevant; the photo in question clearly captures three individuals (all identified in the caption), the most prominently featured being Sean Kennedy. In no way is he the subject. Victoriagirl 16:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- keep - On the notability front Sean Kennedys work is available on most P2P networks, on youtube, google video, and bit torrant, and his NewsReal show is syndicated on several net radio stations which provides notability. He has provided a large quantity of material to a very popular media network and has a visable fanbase. The article covers the information on his activities in an unbiased manner.
Raggedy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.98.241.129 (talk) 08:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC).— 81.98.241.129 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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.