Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evan Kosiner

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. User:Milowent makes the best argument on the delete side, but the rough consensus is that sufficient sourcing has been established. The re-write helps too.Kubigula (talk) 04:51, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Kosiner

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

Can find no reliable independent sources to establish notability for this person. Articles creator has admitted to being paid to create biographical articles. Ridernyc (talk) 16:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Either the nominator doesn't know how to use search engines or doesn't bother to see the reference section. I've never admitted to getting paid for creating articles that do not meet the WP:BIO. Several editors have contributed in the article. Thanks, NickAang (talk) 17:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - The Inside Toronto source looks reliable and independent, and doesn't obviously sound like a promo piece. Elsewhere, a news search reveals a few news hits such as this this Toronto Star source. Ridernyc, While paid editing is frowned upon by many editors, it's not specifically disallowed as long as the conflict of interest and neutral point of view guidelines are adhered to. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is also frowned upon when creating biographical articles. If a person is notable they should not need to hire some to have a page a created for them. The issue of being paid however is secondary. A more key issue is someone creating large numbers of non-notable article over a 24 hour period. Ridernyc (talk) 18:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've never intended to misuse wikipedia for my own benefits. There are many articles pending reviews and all pages I created with sources in references. I've already requested to neutral editors to check all the pages I created to verify whether or not they meet the wikipedia policy. If I suppose to misusing the wikipedia then I would never state this. I hope some editors will guide me properly and if my words hurt you then I'm very sorry. Regards, NickAang (talk) 18:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the article sources mentioned above. They seem to be passing one line mentions during coverage of much larger events. A five paragraph article that merely mentions "and the DJ was" is far from significant coverage in my eyes. Ridernyc (talk) 18:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Inside Toronto source seems to have at least seven or eight paragraphs directly relating to him, with direct quotes. Sounds to me like that passes the guideline in WP:42 that states "there must be at least one lengthy paragraph, and preferably more, directly covering it." Similarly, the Toronto Star source has most of a paragraph, which isn't too great but can count towards notability in my view. We can go through all the other sources if you like, but there are other people on here who are better suited to the task, if I'm honest. However, even this is significantly different from your initial claim of "Can find no reliable independent sources to establish notability for this person." as I did all of the above via a two minute web search. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note This debate is for Evan Kosiner and not for any DJ. If you think the links given in reference section are not reliable then explain the reason on the debate. Please, share your views for proposing the deletion. Please, don't just comment that you didn't find any references etc. If the sources are found non-reliable or no reliable sources are added then admins will do the rightful for the article. Also, you'll not find me arguing with non-reliable sources. Thanks, NickAang (talk) 20:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Read the article, he had quite a notable career, easily passing WP:ENTERTAINER. And references have been found to show he has received coverage, passing WP:GNG as well. Either of those things proves notability. Only nominate articles for deletion if you believe they aren't notable, not because you are suspicious of the creator of the article. If you have any evidence someone was paid, then bring it to the proper venue. Dream Focus 20:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the article and I have read the source and I still believe he is falling short of the GNG. If he has quite the notable carrer please provided the sources for that information. It's easy to say something passes GNG providing sources is another story. Ridernyc (talk) 20:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well aside from the one and a bit sources above, there's this interview, this Ryerson University piece or this news article. I make that significant coverage in four independent reliable sources. Now we can argue the toss over whether four satisfies the "multiple" bit of WP:GNG, but it'll have to wait as I have an urgent appointment with one of these.... Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I disagree with the nominator that there are no reliable independent sources; but what there is, is mostly crap. Essentially this guy falls afoul of the "competent professional" rule. E.g., just being a good stockbroker, media analyst, doctor, lawyer, etc., rarely is enough to be notable. This guy's only twist is the story that he started so young, which has gotten his PR material reprinted close to verbatim in a number of publications. And now he pays a wikipedia editor to do it here. The paid article isn't the problem, though, its that he paid to get his resume on wikipedia, and that's not enough, no matter how awesome he is at his jobs.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to say that please don't get me wrong or don't blame me. I've been contributing to wikipedia and created many articles for which I'M NOT PAID. I never added articles randomly knowing that its a promotion. so, please, don't hate me. If I did something wrong then kindly guide me. Regards, NickAang (talk) 05:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

at least you didn't have to sell a kidney i hope. i'd feel better if you admitted in retrospect some of these articles were probably not wise to create.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 06:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I understand that the topic does not meet the wikipedia article guidelines then I admit that. Otherwise I won't comment here. May be I need to learn about the reliable sources. Thanks, NickAang (talk) 07:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment - Please, also check the WP:WIALPI if the topic falls in this criteria. Thanks, NickAang (talk) 05:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not-notable and spam. GregJackP Boomer! 13:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - The person is notable as google search returning enough links. NickAang (talk) 15:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, this person is not-notable as google search not returning enough RS links. Buy Vicodin cheap cheap.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:LOWPROFILE. NickAang (talk) 08:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nick: please strike the "keep" on the above edit. You only get one !vote. Gtwfan52 (talk) 08:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Why is everyone missing the obvious WP:COPYVIO? Most of the article was copied from this page. — ^Wylie_Coyote 15:08, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. It will have to be rewritten. I did a bit of work on it. Dream Focus 15:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is copied from that page because every "news article" on him is based on his PR, including the PR he paid to write this article.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have rewritten this article from scratch using the sources I referred to above. This should make a decision to keep or delete much more obvious. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Changed vote with cleanup, but he's barely WP:CREATIVE. — ^Wylie_Coyote 04:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

how being in some unknown HBO videos, and industry training videos notable? Ridernyc (talk) 04:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. — ^Wylie_Coyote 04:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If multiple reliable sources said he was a notable lavatory attendant, that would still meet WP:GNG and be worth a stub. As it stands, he did do the HBO videos when he was 7, and the Motorola corp stuff when he was 13, which is a bit more noteworthy. And he owns a television station, which means he's as notable as Stanley Spadowski. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as entirely promotional (G11) and copyvio, would need a complete from-the-ground-up rewrite because of that. Sandstein 20:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hasn't it already been rewritten enough to eliminate those concerns? Dream Focus 21:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it got reverted by a new editor (likely connected to the subject) before Sandstein chimed in.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:50, 1 February 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.