Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jackson Davis (3rd nomination)

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. Advise that it should be a lengthy time before a 4th AfD is even considered. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 08:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Jackson Davis

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Jackson Davis
• Articles for deletion/Jackson Davis (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Jackson Davis (3rd nomination)

Jackson Davis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

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

Fails our biographical notability criteria, general notability criteria and actor notability criteria. All the sources are 1 sentence mentions except the article from his local paper of his home town. Contributors have been asked to add more sources so it passes Wikipedia's notability criteria, but have failed to do so. Otterathome (talk) 19:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. The article already passes the general notability guideline, and the previous AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jackson Davis (2nd nomination)) was less than a month ago. -- Eastmain (talk) 20:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I'd love to know how it passes the general notability guideline. Already nominated isn't a reason see WP:NOTAGAIN, and the closing admin suggested nothing wrong in relisting it again at the deletion review.--Otterathome (talk) 10:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. No indication that evidence of the subject's notability has changed over the last 16 days or that consensus has changed in the 16 days since the prior AFD closed. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk • contribs) 21:11, 28 August 2009
  • Already nominated isn't a reason see WP:NOTAGAIN, and the closing admin suggested nothing wrong in relisting it again at the deletion review.--Otterathome (talk) 10:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Otterathome appears to have a personal vendetta against lonelygirl15 related articles. I don't say that lightly, as I understand the assumption of good faith for wikipedia. I presume Otterthome makes substantive contributions to other parts of wikipedia. But here's the deal for this article: The last AFD was closed only 16 days ago. When closing the AfD, Pastor Theo wrote: "The article's supporters are invited to strengthen its text, while those who favor deletion are welcome to revisit this subject later in the year if the article has seen no substantial improvements." "Later in the year" is not 16 days by any good faith understanding. Furthermore, after the 2nd AfD was not successful, Otterathome immediately requested a deletion review, which was only closed seven days ago. During these debates, Otterathome falsely claimed that I was part of the lonelygirl15 team to try to invent a conflict of interest, based on some parody vids I have uploaded on youtube. That claim was, if not intentionally malicious, at least indicative that s/he is not examining the subject matter and information around it closely enough to be making serial AfDs. Lastly, there is a current Wikiquette alert outstanding against Otterathome regarding his edits in this area, that provides more detail about all this.--Milowent (talk) 21:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Already nominated isn't a reason see WP:NOTAGAIN, and the closing admin suggested nothing wrong in relisting it again at the deletion review. I didn't falsely claim anything, and so what there's a Wikiquette alert on me? Two people have already responded to it stating I had done nothing wrong. Here's a somewhat amusing quote from it: "My advice to Otterathome is, if you find it impossible to deal with the kid stuff calmly and patiently, just stay away from it. Nobody reads it except kids anyway, and it keeps them away from more important articles until they mature a bit. Kids have a very skewed view of notability, but getting into holy wars about it is just a waste of time.".--Otterathome (talk) 10:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Otter you are quite the troll, aren't you? I think we all know who the kid who likes to waste time is here --Milowent (talk) 11:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep: What has it been a week, since this matter was resolved? Let's see Lonelygirl15 is still notable, Jackson Davis was still a major part of it, so what has changed? I don't get it. Mathieas (talk) 23:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• Already nominated isn't a reason see WP:NOTAGAIN, and the closing admin suggested nothing wrong in relisting it again at the deletion review. Nobody is disputing the notability of lonelygirl15, actors notable for one show is a WP:BIO1E which is shown by the serious lack of sources.--Otterathome (talk) 10:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Even if he is only notable for one show (which clearly he's not, he's notable for at least three, but that's besides the point) I'd like to take the following quote from the policy you linked to:

"If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate."

I would argue that lonelygirl15 is a highly significant event due to the information here, and I would argue that Jackson Davis's role was a large one because he was one of the three major actors in the show from nearly the beginning, was the only actor in the show to travel to the UK to participate in the show's sister series KateModern and was one of only two actors to continue onto the follow-up series LG15: The Resistance, which makes him the longest running actor on all EQAL LG15-Universe shows combined. --Zoeydahling (talk) 15:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. This is clearly a personal vendetta by an individual who has little respect for the wikipedia process or the web series genre of entertainment in general. It needs to end now because it just takes away from the valuable time needed to research and build pages. It would be helpful if the senior admins at wikipedia did the right thing here and informed this individual that they need to be more respectful of the broader wiki community and stop posting these intrusive and disruptive deletion notices which are clearly motivated by a personal bias against the web series genre in general rather than any well founded and coherent argument. If wikipedia wants to retain their author base they need to put a swift and decisive end to such practices before it is too late. Too much damage has been done already by this individual and I call on the head admins to take action now to prevent it from continuing in the future.--Modelmotion (talk) 23:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • None of that seems to have anything to do with the notability of the article, read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion to see how to participate properly.--Otterathome (talk) 10:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Perhaps. But it does speak to the credibility and motives of the individual who seems to have a personal vendetta against this page. Would you not agree that those factors are highly relevant? What if some insane person started putting deletion notices on pages they did not like? Would that not be a relevant factor? In this case motive has become the issue since feeble rational arguments are being used to fabricate an unsubstantiated case towards what is essentially an irrational act by an individual whose motives are questionable at best.(for reference see: Confirmation bias)--Modelmotion (talk) 05:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep I see absolutely no reason that the page needs to be deleted 16 days after the prior discussion was closed. In the interest of moving this along though, I have added a number of additional sources to the page. --Zoeydahling (talk) 05:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Already nominated isn't a reason see WP:NOTAGAIN, and the closing admin suggested nothing wrong in relisting it again at the deletion review. Thank you for adding 7 more sources, here's are my reasons why they don't contribute to the notability of the article. 5. Gregory Mantell is a non-notable webshow YouTube channel interview with a number of people including him. 8. Is from eqal.com which is not independant of the subject. 9. & 10. are just links to music videos he supposedly had minor appearances in. 11. Appears to suggest he hosted a non-notable amatuer comedy show. 12. & 13. More minor appearances in non-notable webshows. So all in all, just more minor stuff.--Otterathome (talk) 10:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I actually think WP:NOTAGAIN works against you here based on the following quotations:

"An article that was kept in a past deletion discussion may still be deleted if deletion is supported by strong reasons that were not adequately addressed in the previous deletion discussion; after all, consensus can change." (You have not included any new arguments that were not addressed in the last AfD.)

"If an article is frivolously nominated (or renominated) for deletion, then editors are justified in opposing the renomination. Frivolous renominations may constitute disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point, especially when there was a consensus to keep it in the past, or when only a short time has elapsed since the last nomination." (emphasis added). 16 days after the AfD and 7 days after the Deletion Review is definitely a "short time."

"If an article was kept because it is potentially encyclopedic and can be improved or expanded, one should allow time for editors to improve it. Therefore, it is appropriate for editors to oppose a re-nomination that does not give enough time to improve the article." (16 days is hardly enough time to improve upon an article.)

Additionally, your comment about the closing admin saying that the article can be renominated does not support your 16 day renomination: "The article's supporters are invited to strengthen its text, while those who favor deletion are welcome to revisit this subject later in the year if the article has seen no substantial improvements." "Later in the year" is definitely not only 16 days later.

As far as your assessment of my sources, while I agree with some of them, I am confused or disagree about others. I am still new to this process, so perhaps if I am mistaken in my assessment here, you can direct me to the WP that says otherwise, but here are my thoughts:

• Gregory Mantell - Gregory Mantell is both a cable and web show [1] and therefore I am unsure why it would be any less notable than any other cable TV shows.
• Why is a source from EQAL not notable? Jackson Davis does not control what EQAL puts out. He is an actor who works for the production company. Would Summit Entertainment putting out a statement on Kristen Stewart then be considered non-notable? I read WP:IS but it says nothing about sources put out by a larger company that one works for, only sources that the subject themselves or their PR people put out about them.
• What makes ACME Comedy non-notable? It is a well-known comedy show that has featured well-known celebrities and comedians including: Wayne Brady, Adam Carolla, Bryan Cranston, Joel McHale, Kel Mitchell, Ryan Stiles, Fred Willard, Wil Wheaton, among others. [2]
• Raul Midon is a notable singer, so why would an appearance in one of his music videos be considered non-notable?

Thanks. --Zoeydahling (talk) 14:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• I didn't need to include any new arguments because they weren't addressed in the previous afd and the article still fails the guidelines I mentioned. 7 days is long enough seeing as closing statement at DRV suggested to relist it. There has been plenty of time for editors to improve the article, I nominated it at the start of August, nearly a whole month. I was referring to the deletion review not the afd, a link was also provided.
• I pushed aside Gregory Mantell, because there's no article on the individual or show, plus it is an interview with a number of lesser known people Ilene Kristen and Bob Guiney. It is only a cable broadcast shown in New York and LA. It's not exactly The Jay Leno Show. Plus if it was notable wouldn't there be an article somewhere even mentioning it?
• I didn't say the EQAL source wasn't notable, I said it wasn't independant so doesn't contribute towards the notability of the subject.
• ACME comedy is just a theater and the sources provided don't say anything about being a host, just show him making an appearance. So minor.
• Yes Raul Midon is notable, but just appearing in a music video doesn't make you notable. Otherwise every stage dancing/model of every music video would be notable. Another source on it would help though.--Otterathome (talk) 17:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The closing statement at the DRV said "No consensus; no prejudice against relisting" but that does not say anything about relisting in such a short amount of time. Additionally, about your comments regarding my sources:

• Gregory Mantell still appears on Cable TV and an interview would therefore still be notable. I wholeheartedly disagree with you about the notability of the other guests. Ilene Kristen is a well-known and much-beloved soap star who has appeared in 566 episodes of Ryan's Hope and 151 episodes of One Life to Live [3]. Bob Guiney is probably one of the best-known Bachelors and since his appearance on the show (plus the Bachelorette) has hosted a number of notable shows including GSN Live, The View, and ABC's Super Bowl coverage, among many others. [4] I would therefore argue that he was on with two very notable people and that makes his appearance notable based on your argument above.
• The YT source, on the official acmecomedy channel (as can be evidenced by its link from the official website), is titled "Acme This Week 2008/09/06 Host: Jackson Davis" proving that he did, in fact, host the show that week. Also, if you watch the videos, you can see he is the host.
• I will try to find another source about the Raul Midon video.

--Zoeydahling (talk) 18:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• Additionally, I'd like to point out your arguments about the policies which Jackson fails are not true based on the policy descriptions:

• Wikipedia:BIO - "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject... If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." -- The coverage provided by the Lancaster Sunday News is in-depth. Additionally, there are a number of other sources that provide less in-depth but still significant coverage of Jackson, including his interview with Gregory Mantell and the press release by EQAL.
• WP:ENT -- "Has had significant roles in multiple commercially produced or significant films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." His significant roles include: lonelygirl15, KateModern, and LG15: The Resistance, among others.
• WP:NOTABILITY -- "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." I would argue that 13 sources constitutes significant coverage. Even if you do not count all of them as "worthy" there are still a number of in-depth articles or articles with more than just a "trivial mention" and interviews that suggest he has received significant coverage.

--Zoeydahling (talk) 15:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• WP:BIO - Yes, that is a local newspaper from his hometown, and is the only non-trivial source on the subject so still fails WP:N, see Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_is_not_temporary. Any notable biography is expected to have at least two, and not ones just from their hometown. Interview is a non-notable web show so isn't WP:RS, and EQAL is a company he worked for so is not independant.
• WP:ENT - It doesn't state anything about webshows, but I don't know if any of them are "commercially produced or significant" because they have so few sources. They are part of the lonelygirl15 series so they are from the same company with many of the same characters so are barely considered seperate or new productions, just another web-series.
• WP:NOTABILITY - Adding up one line sentences from lots of places doesn't equal significant coverage. So there is still only 1 article of significant coverage by his local hometown newspaper.--Otterathome (talk) 17:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

--Otterathome (talk) 17:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• WP:BIO - The interview is from a Cable TV and web show (see link I posted above). Once again, I ask how that is any less notable than any other show appearing on Cable TV. Additionally, I again pose my question about Summit Entertainment putting out a statement about Kristen Stewart re your argument about EQAL.
• WP:ENT - If you do not know that Lonelygirl15 is significant, I am confused as to why you are attacking the related pages so heavily. Regardless, Lonelygirl15 is significant because it started the genre and when the story behind its fictionality broke, new sources such as Jay Leno, Wired and the New York Times (among MANY others) covered it. It is commercially produced as the show received a number of product placement sponsors, including The Hershey Company [5], Jumper (film) [6], and Neutrogena [7]. KateModern is significant for being the first web show on Bebo, a social network that now produces a number of web shows, and is commercially produced with sponsors including Toyota [8], Orange Mobile [9], Microsoft, HP, and Paramount [10]. Additionally, all of the shows received venture capital funding in the amount of $5 mil from investors such as Spark Capital, Conrad Riggs, Ron Conway, Marc Andreessen, and others. [11][12] Additionally, your comment about them not being separate series is simply not true. They may have been started by the same company, but they had different production teams, different actors (for the most part), etc. I would also like to ask, if someone starred in a movie and its sequel, wouldn't that count as two separate movies? Why would web shows be any different?
• WP:NOTABILITY - Once again, why are the sources I mentioned above not significant? You still have not addressed that.

--Zoeydahling (talk) 17:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• WP:BIO - It doesn't seem to very notable to me because the show itself gets so little coverage in any media and is only broadcast on cable in LA/New York. We need publications, not interviews. You seem to be a little confused about independant sources despite linking to WP:IS. "An independent source is a source which describes a topic from a disinterested perspective." Meaning, if they already have an official connection such as an actor working for the company, the company writing about one of their employees isn't independant.
• WP:ENT - If it was incredibly significant, that would give more weight in the notability of this actor. Saying it started that genre is a very bold statement, so you'll need a reliable source to back that up. Commercially produced and sponsored isn't the same thing, if I started a webshow and got a company to pay me to put their logo in my show, would it be commercially produced? No. Again if KateModern was the first show on bebo you need to provide a source for that bold'ish statement. Web shows are different because you don't need any money to make them, I can upload two videos onto youtube and call it a webshow.
• WP:NOTABILITY - I already described the problems with the sources above edit at 10:30 above.
• --Otterathome (talk) 08:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Once again, I pose the question: Why are you attacking these pages so heavily if you don't even know some basic information about the content?

Anyway, first of all... Commercially produced:

Commercially - 1) of, pertaining to, or characteristic of commerce. (They are taking in commerce. They have large corporate sponsors and $5 mil in venture capital as a result of their shows. See my sources above. Additionally...) 11) paid for by advertisers (Spells out pretty clearly that having a sponsor would make it commercial).

Produced - 2) to bring into existence by intellectual or creative ability (Clearly they did this or it wouldn't exist).

Therefore, commercially produced. (Additionally, see [13] -- "Not only that, but the London-based series [KateModern] is profitable, with some £200,000 ($405,000) in revenue"

Lonelygirl15 as the start of the genre -- "the pioneering online video series “lonelygirl15”" [14]; "But the series he created shows that Internet TV has arrived. "; "It hadn’t taken them long to figure out, by trial and error, what worked in this new genre" (emphasis added); "When “My Parents Suck …” broke 500,000 views, Beckett and Flinders realized this wasn’t just an experiment or a setup for a film. It was a medium in its own right." (emphasis added); Beckett is clearly frustrated. “The Web isn’t just a support system for hit TV shows,” he says. “It’s a new medium. It requires new storytelling techniques. The way the networks look at the Internet now is like the early days of TV, when announcers would just read radio scripts on camera. It was boring in the same way all this supplemental material is boring.”"; "Beckett says. “You make movies for the big screen, sitcoms for TV, and something else entirely for the Internet. That’s the lesson of Lonelygirl15.”" [15] (see link for more info and further details).

KateModern as the first show on Bebo -- "we should note that the show benefits from being Bebo’s first big foray into content" [16]

Additionally, what makes an interview any less worthy than a publication? After all, many publications come from interviews in the first place. And the fact that it is only broadcast in two cities does not make it any less notable. Those are two of the biggest cities in the US and getting shown there is definitely a big deal.

--Zoeydahling (talk) 17:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

You don't need to be very knowledgable on the article that you are nominating for deletion as that it's the authors' job to add sufficient sources to prove notability, see WP:BURDEN. Was lonelygirl15 commercially produced? Sounds like they were making money after they started making it. They may be commercially produced but it's still from the same company/lg15 series with same actors. Barely any difference.

'pioneering' is not the same as starting genre.

It says "Bebo’s first big foray into content" but it also says it was on a videoegg player "We haven’t been able to verify the numbers because the show uses the VideoEgg player" which doesn't seem to be associated with bebo. So it looks like they just embedded the content on the bebo website, which isn't the same thing as hosting it.

Interviews are less note worthy because anyone can be interviewed by anyone and depending on the interview they are may or may not be controlled. So are in effect trivial coverage unless it's an extensive interview. For example the guidelines at WP:BAND allows any interviews 30 minutes can be used to count towards notability.--Otterathome (talk) 16:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN - Same as it is the responsibility of the editors who create the page to prove that the material belongs, it is your responsibility as the person tagging the page for deletion to prove it doesn't belong, which you cannot do if you don't understand the material you are tagging. Additionally, "It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find sources oneself that support such material, and cite them." -- You have clearly not made such reasonable efforts if you have not done enough research to understand some basics about the content.

Pioneering -- 2) one who is first or among the earliest in any field of inquiry, enterprise, or progress (emphasis added) -- So yes, pioneering is the same as starting the genre. Additionally, see the Wired article I linked which was written right when Lonelygirl15 "came out of the closet" as being a production with actors not an actual girl video blogging, which uses terms such as "new genre" "start of the genre" and "shows that Internet TV has arrived" which also indicates that they started the genre.

VideoEgg player hosts videos on Bebo. Here is a source that clarifies my point explicitly -- "KateModern, the flagship online drama broadcast by social networking site Bebo" Does that make it clear to you? KateModern is the "flagship online drama" "by social networking site Bebo." Even the title EXPLICITLY states "Bebo's KateModern." In fact, a simple google search will show many other articles using the same terminology. Furthermore, this press release by EQAL further clarifies the relationship between Bebo and KateModern.

WP:BAND has nothing to do with Jackson Davis. A band would be notable if a half-hour broadcast about them was done, but that would be more if they had their music played in a chunk of that time, not if an interview of that amount was done. Nobody does interviews that last half an hour with one person or group. That is an unreasonable guideline to apply here, not to mention, Jackson Davis is not a band. I still assert that the interview is on a notable show, being a Cable TV show broadcast in two major US cities, and the interview is sufficiently long and alongside two very other notable people, and therefore should definitely count in establishing the notability of Jackson Davis.

So you agree that they are commercially produced then? And once again, they have separate production teams and separate actors except in the case of a few notable exceptions, such as Jackson Davis, who is the ONLY actor to appear in all three series. EQAL, the company behind these shows, is just, in essence, the studio. Going back to my Summit Entertainment example, if that company put out two different movies with the same actor, both of those movies would count towards the notability of the actor. This is no different.

--Zoeydahling (talk) 17:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Why does the Lancaster Sunday News not count as a reliable source? One has to assume that your argument is based on the assumption that their is a correlation between the circulation of a newspaper and the validity of the facts contained within and hence the validity of the facts becomes dependent on the size of town a newspaper originates from. Does Wikipedia have a policy that discriminates against all small towns in the World? Are we to discount all local newspapers and weight news based on population? How is that fair? If someone is from New York City are you going to disclude the New York Times and all other media from New York City? The fact that the coverage is from a local news paper should not be the factor that determines the significance of facts. The criteria should be the quality of the journalism and the accuracy of the facts. The size of a town or the place of a persons birth or their place of residence do not reflect upon the validity of the facts. Certainly some media sources have a world wide reputation but even 60 Minutes gets facts wrong. If the article in a local newspaper is well researched and accurate that should be the primary consideration for why a source is reliable and to discriminate based on an individuals place of birth or the population of a town just seems contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia.--Modelmotion (talk) 23:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• I didn't say it wasn't a reliable source.--Otterathome (talk) 08:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

So you now agree that the article has at least one very good and credible source from a reputable newspaper? So what is your problem with the article since you have just agreed that the source is totally up to Wikipedia standards?--Modelmotion (talk) 08:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

If you had read what has already been discussed instead of latching on to certain parts of it, you'd know having only a single siginificant source for a biography can easily equals WP:1E, and all other guidelines require more than 1 source where the subject has been properly covered. Which this doesn't.--Otterathome (talk) 16:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

But the previous deletion was denied so if you now say that the citation is fully authoritative by Wikipedia standards does that not discredit this additional attempt to have the article deleted. That alone would seem to support the notion of [confirmation bias]].--Modelmotion (talk) 21:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy keep
  • Consensus did not change: While Otter keeps repeating "Consensus can change, consensus can change", it has been decided to keep this page twice this month, and there is no evidence that anything in the situation changed. His own opposition to this page is certainly not news. It should be obvious we're deep in WP:OVERZEALOUS territory by now. Otterathome needs to get over it and just let go. WP:NOTAGAIN describes it aptly: "An article that was kept in a past deletion discussion may still be deleted if deletion is supported by strong reasons that were not adequately addressed in the previous deletion discussion". As pointed out before, there are no strong reasons that were not adequately addressed in the previous deletion discussion. Otterathome thinks Jackson Davis is not notable. That's not news. That was the situation both in the previous nomination as well as in the review, and both times the result was keep. There is nothing new in this nomination, and no proof that anything changed in the last week. In fact, WP:CCC, which he himself cites to support his actions, says "It is reasonable and indeed often desirable to make further changes to things at a later date, even if the last change was years ago" - emphasis added. Surely "one week" is not "a later date" in the spirit of the policy.
  • Frivolous: While Otter loves to point out that there was nothing barring him from re-nomination, the previous closing admin's words were "[...] while those who favor deletion are welcome to revisit this subject later in the year if the article has seen no substantial improvements" - emphasis added. Otter also loves to claim WP:NOTAGAIN does not apply, while said section clearly states "If an article is frivolously nominated (or renominated) for deletion, then editors are justified in opposing the renomination. Frivolous renominations may constitute [...] when only a short time has elapsed since the last nomination". 16 days since the last AFD ended. 7 days since the review ended. That is short time.
  • Bogus nomination reason: His claim that editors have failed to add better sources is bogus at best, not only because he is the only one judging the quality of the sources, but moreso because he continuously disrupts the editing process of this page by nominating it again and again and again. On one hand, he expects people to improve the page, while on the other hand, he keeps tying everyone up with nominations again and again and again. In order to have the page improved, the editors involved have to actually have a chance to edit it, rather than spending their time in frivolous deletion discussions.
  • Nomination goes against WP:AFD: Nevertheless, the page actually has improved significantly in the past four weeks - WP:AFD clearly and unambiguously states "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD".
  • FUD: In addition, Otter keeps trying to disguise the fact that he is the only one interested in deletion by using the notavote template as a FUD tactic to cast doubt on people's positions. Independent from the fact that his template is tellingly lacking an URL, even if the discussion was mentioned elsewhere, WP:AFD has an entire section on notifying interested editors. Notifying people interested in the article that it's up for deletion is not against Wikipedia policy, and trying to frame any such notification as a request to blind vote is dishonest at best.
    The fact that Otter disagrees with the majority opinion does not invalidate it, and the fact that it is the majority opinion does not mean it was formed through inappropriate measures.
  • On the content side, I actually have the Bud Light commercial marked on the page as needing citation, from a forwarded mail directly from Anheuser-Busch after a different user requested it from them. Due to Wikipedia's 10,000 policies, I can't just add a screencap, but if someone points out where I'll find the necessary policies to use a screencap from a copyrighted work, I'll try to get it in. For reference, it's the commercial with the granny on the quad, featuring the tag line "Smart grannies choose Bud Light".

In summary: This nomination goes against WP:AFD, it's a frivolous nomination as per WP:NOTAGAIN, WP:CCC does not apply due to the very limited timeframe, the previous closing admin's directions were to wait with renomination, and the only supporter for deletion so far (watch the meatpuppets roll in after I post) is the nominator himself.

WP:KEEP lists among possible reasons "obviously frivolous or vexatious nominations" as well as "making nominations of the same article with the same arguments after they were strongly rejected". I have already shown how the nomination qualifies as frivolous, and while "strongly rejected" is certainly subjective, the fact that the same user with the same argumentation was unsuccessful in both the AFD as well as the review within a 3-week-period should be strong enough for a speedy keep.

~ Renegade - 80.171.51.191 (talk) 18:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 04:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Everything you've said assumes I'm the only one who thinks it isn't notable and should be deleted, which isn't true as evidenced by the previous AFD and DRV.--Otterathome (talk) 08:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

First of all, that's a lie. Plain and simple. Not only does only a minor part of the post "assume" that you're alone, but it's only really the central part of the argument in the last paragraph, where I argue for Speedy Keep. Dishonest tactics like that are one of the reasons there's a Wikiquette Alert for you.

Besides, your argumentation is blatantly fallacious. Your entire basis for this AfD is that consensus can change, and that, as such, the previous AfD's and the review's outcome don't matter. Therefore, the previous AfD-participants' opinion only become relevant if they are stated as current opinions in this AfD.

Either you insist that consensus has changed in the past week, then previous points of view are irrelevant, or you insist it hasn't, then accept consensus and speedy keep this.

To pretend that supporters' opinions may have changed, but that opponents' opinions most definitely stayed the same is all but ridiculous.

~ Renegade - 80.171.29.22 (talk) 18:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Numbers are certainly not the sole factor in making decisions, but in terms of the current deletion discussion which pertains to the page as it currently stands who else is in favor of deletion? No one so far! I think the credibility of the individuals also goes to the issue. The mere fact that someone is able to cite Wikipedia policy without having the perspective to see it within the context of the current discussion certainly does not support the credibility of those in favor of deletion in this instance. Persistent attempts to attack this page without good justification are simply not acceptable on Wikipedia and clearly demonstrate the prior assertion of confirmation bias.--Modelmotion (talk) 11:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Coming from a semi-deliberate wikipedia outsider, and someone that has NEVER SEEN, BARELY HEARD OF, and basically KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT this lonelygirl thing... Otter, you're grasping at straws. This nom is blindingly obviously both vexatious and frivolous. It's pretty clear you've made this thing personal. Why I can't fathom, it simply isn't important enough to be worth the trouble. Not to mention your own arguments fail.

WP:NOTAGAIN *does* apply in this situation, in precisely the opposite way you're trying to assert that it does. It's intended to prevent the argument of 'It got nominated and kept two years ago so it shouldn't be nominated now!' It SPECIFICALLY lays out an exception for situations where a single editor tries to spam an article up on AFD until it gets deleted. And even I, who think the entire deletion process on wikipedia verges on offensive(it's one of the reasons I won't make an account), know that you're not only allowed to but actually supposed to inform the other editors involved with the article that it's been nominated.

Simply put, no admin is going to reasonably support an almost verbatim reposting of an AFD that ended less than three weeks prior, especially with an appeal that ended a week prior. No matter how you argue, no matter how you wikilawyer, you can't win this one mate. It doesn't even matter if you're right or not. I don't know if you are, and I frankly don't care. I don't know who this guy is, and I likely never will, and that won't bother me(a walking mass of trivia), one little bit. Your METHODS alone make your success impossible. You're not working with the community, you're not being reasonable, and you're making no attempt whatsoever to improve the subject matter. You simply want it gone, and refuse to hear any argument to the contrary.

Seriously man, get a grip, let it go. These tactics will in the end lead you to only one place. It's called ARBCOMM. -Graptor 208.102.243.30 (talk) 11:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

There was no consensus before, so there's nothing wrong in nominating it again. To the IP 'Graptor', or the 'semi-deliberate wikipedia outsider', when you stop failing WP:AGF & WP:CIVIL and stop criticizing Wikipedia itself, then you might actually have an argument.--Otterathome (talk) 16:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

So wait, the guy who has made it a point to, in every single of these discussions so far, brand everyone's support as blind voting, tried to put in doubt individual supporters' opinions, misrepresented fanfic as official material to generate a conflict of interest, refused to see any outcome but deletion, and deliberately lied about the nature of my argumentation is trying to lecture people about Assuming Good Fath and Civility?

WP:IRONY at its finest.

Just let go, man.

~ Renegade - 80.171.84.253 (talk) 18:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Confirmation bias is a serious problem and to point out that this third deletion notice is totally irrational and not substantiated by fact is not respectful of Wikipedia or the Wikipedia process. What is disrespectful is to ignore the wishes of the wikipedia community when they have clearly demonstrated that this article already meets Wikipedia standards. I call on the senior admins at Wikipedia to put a swift end to this problem and warn the individual concerned that future abuses of Wikipedia policies will not be tolerated.--Modelmotion (talk) 21:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

This 'wikipedia community' you talk about seems to consist of mostly fans of the things the subject has starred in

The 'it was already nominated not too long ago' only applies when the afd showed nobody supported deletion except the nominator. This is untrue as show in the afd + drv so I don't know why you keep repeating it.--Otterathome (talk) 18:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it applies when A.) A long enough time period has passed that it's reasonable to expect consensus could have changed; B.) A long time period has passed, and the previously lacking article that was kept because it could BECOME a decent article...hasn't; C.) Something new emerges that changes the situation since the last AFD. It does NOT apply to 'they didn't come to the OBVIOUSLY correct conclusion that I did about it so they CLEARLY didn't think about it.' And as he said...the Irony. You're not being civil and not acting in good faith yourself, you're fighting dirty and trying to use minutiae to support your arguments...when BASICALLY NO ONE ELSE AGREES WITH YOU. You might've had a point the first time. Re-AFDing two weeks later is like the pet referendum of some elected officials getting voted down, so then they just go ahead and implement it anyway without a vote. Guess who the only people surprised by the angry backlash are. -Graptor 208.102.243.30 (talk) 04:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

And as we already established, you are rejecting previous consensus by nominating it again, as such, previous opinions are irrelevant. Which leaves us at a simple truth: You are the only one supporting deletion.

Either you want to argue on basis of the previous AfD and DRV, then accept consensus and the closing admin's directions, or you reject the previous consensus, then stop arguing with the very discussions that formed it. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either the previous AfD is relevant or not. It can't be both.

(Or, to put it in your language: Consensus can change. These people may have been against the page in the previous AfD and DRV, but there is no proof they are still holding that opinion right now.)

~ Renegade - 80.171.83.218 (talk) 22:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. The 2nd nomination failed and so did the deletion review, the closing comment by the admin was "while those who favor deletion are welcome to revisit this subject later in the year if the article has seen no substantial improvements" the article has had 7 more references added to it since last time it was nominated for deletion. The article has sign of substantial improvements and later in the year isn't 16 days after the last attempt WP:NOTAGAIN, yes their is no set amount of time before you can nominate an article but Otterathome you are clearly not giving enough time for work on the article to be done before you nominate. The argument brought forward by Zoeydahling stands and Otterathome needs to WP:GETOVERIT and WP:JDI.

~ KindredPhantom (talk) 18:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Another spa voting keep with same 'it was already nominated' reason.--Otterathome (talk) 18:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Another cheap attempt to gloss over the fact that even your own, oft-cited WP:NOTAGAIN states

"If an article is frivolously nominated (or renominated) for deletion, then editors are justified in opposing the renomination. Frivolous renominations may constitute [...] when only a short time has elapsed since the last nomination."

The fact that the page was nominated just a few weeks ago and kept is relevant to this discussion.

~ Renegade - 80.171.83.218 (talk) 22:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Why do you keep repeating yourself? I don't think you know what consensus means.--Otterathome (talk) 17:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Another spa voting keep with same 'it was already nominated' reason. I fail to see the relevance. I am a contributor to Wikipedia thus i am allowed to voice my opinion even if it the same as another users. Need i remind you of WP:BITE? Or are you now shifting focus from discussion of the article and instead attempting to discredit those whose opinion is not in line with yours? ~ KindredPhantom (talk) 17:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• Snow Keep And I am not a SPA and I was not asked to come here and comment. I did not particpate in the 2008 AfD. I did not particpate in the AFD of 3 weeks ago. I did not participate in the DRV. I looked at the article and looked at the actor's history. 153 episodes of Lonelygirl 15 and 13 episodes of LG15: The Resistance allow Davis to meet WP:ENT. Easily... and there is just enough sourcing provided to show he was in those two series. The tremendous single-mined effort being made to delete this article is strangely out of proportion to the article and its notability. My opinion is that notability has been shown and that it improves the project to have this article remain and grow. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

  There is a discussion above asking whether the two things are considered completely separate productions as they are by the same company, have the same characters are considered part of the same series.--Otterathome (talk) 17:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

  I would say they are two separate productions. Just because they are from the same company it does not mean they are one and the same. For example Angel was the spin-off from Buffy the Vampire Slayer like LG15: The Resistance is the spinoff from Lonelygirl 15.

  ~ KindredPhantom (talk) 17:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• The same production company means nothing as far as establishing separation in the series. Warner Brothers Studios, for instances, puts out tons of films and I would be willing to bet that the same actor appeared in more than one of them, but you wouldn't say that both productions don't count toward establishing the notability of the actors. Just because the same company puts out two different productions does not make appearing in more those productions any less notable.
• They do NOT, for the most part, have the same characters. See lonelygirl15 characters, LGPedia, KateModern characters, LGPedia, and LG15: The Resistance characters, LGPedia. You will notice that the only characters shared by Lonelygirl15 and KateModern are Steve (Giles Alderson) and Jonas (Jackson Davis) from their two-week cross-over (additional minor characters were shared, as the week when Jonas was in KateModern, all the characters who appeared in those videos were considered part of Lonelygirl15, and vice-versa. However, those two actors were the only ones who actually appeared on each others' shows). The only two characters shared by Lonelygirl15 and LG15: The Resistance were Jonas (Jackson Davis) and Sarah (Alexandra Dreyfus). And the single only character shared between KateModern and LG15: The Resistance was Jonas (Jackson Davis). Considering the large number of characters shown on the pages, it is hard to argue that they have the same characters to any notable degree.
• I think you are confusing sharing the same mythology with being a part of the same series. For instance, see this quote: "[LG15: The Resistance] shares the same mythology of competing secret societies behind lonelygirl15 and KateModern" (emphasis added) [17] Please find me a single RELIABLE source that says they are the same series. You can't. They aren't.
• --Zoeydahling (talk) 17:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• Wow Zoeydahling you sure know your stuff. This article describes all three as one series.--Otterathome (talk) 18:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• Please show me where it says that. The article does not once state "Lonelygirl15, KateModern, and LG15: The Resistance are the same series." Also, please be more considerate with the way you address me. WP:CIVIL, which you yourself cited above... WP:IRONY. --Zoeydahling (talk) 19:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• "are the founders of the online studio EQAL, which is best known for the "LonelyGirl15" series. The latest installment of the series is "LG15: The Resistance""--Otterathome (talk) 17:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• All they mean by that LG15: The Resistance continues to build upon the mythology laid out in the Lonelygirl15 story and continues the stories of the two characters mentioned previously. It does not mean that the stories are the same series, just that one continues certain aspects of the other. --Zoeydahling (talk) 17:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• Exactly, so they are barely completely separate productions.--Otterathome (talk) 18:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• No. Once again, read my posts here and here as well as KindredPhantom's post here. --Zoeydahling (talk) 18:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• Strong, speedy Keep. I have never seen this actor or the show he's on. I am as far out of the demographic as possible. But I have to ask why this nominator is so ultra-fixated on deleting this article, especially considering that the subject clearly and unquestionably passes Wikipedia's notability requirements? I'm trying to assume good faith here, but given that multiple editors have repeatedly given solid reasons in all three nominations why this person is notable, I do have to wonder if this is being nominated for personal reasons and not for the betterment of the encyclopedia. I also wonder why the editor cares so much about one article that he feels it necessary to repeatedly nominate it for AFD and DRV and not just let consensus be. The attempts to brand opponents as single-purpose accounts or as attached to the show itself are worrisome as well. --NellieBly (talk) 12:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

  If it "clearly and unquestionably passes Wikipedia's notability requirements" then why did the last afd receive delete votes, and the drv of it receive some overturn and deletes? Also what consensus? You've basically just repeated everything that has already been said so have contributed nothing new.--Otterathome (talk) 17:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• So basically you are telling this user that there is no consensus, but also saying that they are just repeating everything that has already been said (thereby contributing to the consensus of "everything that has already been said")? Very ironic. --Zoeydahling (talk) 18:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

To any admin or third party-user currently reading this page: I would like to note that Otterathome has recently added the Puffery template to Jackson Davis to further discredit the opinions of users on this page. I truly believe his conduct needs to be addressed. --Zoeydahling (talk) 15:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep and keep improving. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

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.