Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Zed

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. MBisanz talk 02:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Zed

edit
Peter Zed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Clearly non-notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bevinbell (talk • contribs) 05:38, March 21, 2009

Deletion contested
  • Please note that the entry concerns a wrestler and pro-wrestling journalist, which has been defined as notable by existing considerations on Wikipedia. (talk) 06:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He doesn't appear to pass WP:N. I can't find any information from reliable sources on Google or Google News, and the simple fact that he wrote for a notable website doesn't make him notable. The World Intellectual Property Organization citation is just a report of legal proceedings so I don't think it establishes notability, especially since no independant media talked about it. Laurent (talk) 12:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you seek out all secondary links or simply rely on one search engine to pass judgement on the entry? Did you read through the entire legal entry on WIPO and do you have copies of the print decision? 'Doesn't appear to pass notability' applies in what context...are you a knowledgable about pro-wrestling? Sevencraft (talk) 12:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well if you know any reliable third party sources, feel free to provide them. I can't find any myself that's all I'm saying. I didn't read through the WIPO entry but again I don't see how this single entry could establish notability since the legal case doesn't seem to have been mentioned in the media. Laurent (talk) 13:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which country of origin are those who are arguing for deletion from and do they have an understanding of international political machinations? Sevencraft (talk) 12:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - doesn't pass WP:ATHLETE or WP:CREATIVE. WIPO issue (WP:BLP1E if we're only relying on that), if it's significant enough, can be included elsewhere. Rd232 talk 14:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As testified by Vince McMahon in court, professional wrestlers are sports entertainers not athletes, so the above deletion link is inconsistent.
  • Delete per WP:N, WP:BIO. Ridiculous puffy vanity autobio of the sort that we (thankfully) don't see much of on Wikipedia anymore. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The above two entries do nothing to invalidate the notability of said entry. They both concentrate on the validity of one link, the WIPO reference, without noting the other contributions. The fact is, there is references from print, web and traditional material found within the article, and not simply web-only links. Will strive to find and search additional references for those who simply read it for a moment without understanding national context. Again, what country are the posters who have voted for delete here from. Because I'm sure I can find 80% of your home country notables that have no validity in foreign context Sevencraft (talk) 15:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a bias in the inconsistent reporting above concerning assumptions that the contributor is in fact of the male gender,Sevencraft (talk) 15:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, the article is part of a broader entry for Wikimania2009 so it is impossible to suggest that deleting the entry at least until additional references have been provided as to the nature of the entry have been corroborated. Sevencraft (talk) 15:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another reference of a notable nature has been added: From the YNOT News website Wikipedia and the Adult Industry: A Beginners Guide..."TORONTO - With Cybernet Expo a few short months away, it seems outrageous that in 2009, the adult industry has failed to form its own core users group on the popular online encyclopedia Wikipedia. With that in mind, perhaps the most important task at hand for attendees this year is to get their heads out of the sand and begin the process of including an increased focus on Wikipedia and Wikimedia associated websites. If you've been under a rock for the last five years, Wikipedia is the world's largest encyclopedia - and good news for webmasters - it is both free to edit and uses open-source. Free as in beer and open-source as in a user-friendly version of PHP. That's a pretty sweet combination for any webmaster." Sevencraft (talk) 15:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not, in my opinion, meet WP:N. It is full of unsourced biographical material such as the claimed 2009 incident involving a panic attack and counterfeit watches and sometime reads like a press release. It also bothers me that the original editor, who is also the subject, seems to be creating source material such as the recently added Wikipedia and the Adult Industry: A Beginners Guide which is simply an editorial about Wikipedia. Wperdue (talk) 17:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply]
    • Will remove the panic attack information as per the editor's request.
And how reliable is YNOT anyway? A website that publishes news just to get an article on Wikipedia, I would call that a questionable source. Laurent (talk) 18:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Major Update

DELETE Still non-notable, still COI, still press release, still nonsensical in parts. Wiki entry about incoherent comments to someone's blog does not make one a journalist.Bevinbell (talk) 20:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Again, wrong, you have struck at this particular page for some reason I can't understand why. there are hundreds of pro-wrestler pages on Wikipedia and en entire portal. I will continue the edit but more than straight out duplicating the text of any number of a hundred other pro wrestlers is ridiculous. Pro wrestlers have notable contributions to Wikipedia.Sevencraft (talk) 22:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The page has been cleaned up and now mirrors in content and tone that of other pro wrestlers and other adult industry journalists which are considered notable to Wikipedia.Sevencraft (talk) 22:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have satisfied the requirements for notablility and removed the sections in question. You will note, as have others who have submitted information to this page, that unless you are prepared to begin an entirely new direction and begin banning all pages by pro wrestlers and adult industry journalists, the criticim is simply misplaced. the page will receive minor edits as time goes on but I am preparing to add further references to the now reduced content to provide addition sources of notability Sevencraft (talk) 23:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:BIO requires that the facts in the article be verifiable. The cited sources do not verify the facts in the article- in fact, none of the cited sources, as far as I can tell, is a article about Peter Zed from a reliable source. I was not able to find any articles about Peter Zed with my own google search, either. Of course, I have no objection to recreation of the article if and when somewhere, a few significant sources write about him in a significant way. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I was not able to find any articles about Peter Zed with my own google search"... This is typical wikipedia gangbanging at its worst. Complaints were made about the page and it was edited... "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." There are two direct references on the page linking to articles from two different adult industry sources attributed to Peter Zed. More references will be added but the scope of complaints is not clear. Are those who are complaining here prepared to begin scouring all asult industry journalists and pro-wrestlers to destroy entries? — Sevencraft (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Reply. I am sorry if my comment was confusing for you. Articles written by Peter Zed are not helpful sources; what's needed are significant articles about Peter Zed. As it is fairly clear that you are Peter Zed, you are the person most likely to know if such articles exist; if you have been profiled or interviewed in significant sources, it would be helpful if you would tell us where those sources are. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." Two more references have been added, one from Pro Wrestling Torch and one for Frank Magazine. Please do not make baseless accusations regarding whom is who. Are those that are prepared to delete this entry prepared to delete all pro wrestling journalist entries and adult industry journalist enties? Sevencraft (talk) 23:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I'm going to have to jump to FisherQueen's defense here. The "accusation" about Sevencraft and Peter Zed being the same person, I believe is entirely true. This article http://www.ynot.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=ea_article&sid=49452 written by Peter Zed reads at the end "You can reach Zed with your questions at sevencraft@live.com or join him on WikiProject Adult industry". I'm not a detective, but it seems very coincidental that the current username of the editor pushing to keep this article and the stated email address of Peter Zed on the YNot entry are exactly the same. Wperdue (talk) 23:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply]
  • Reply. It certainly isn't an accusation; it isn't a crime or a bad thing to be Peter Zed. However, it's pretty obvious that you are him, for the reasons Wperdue mentioned and also because you're showing the characteristic editing pattern of a person who is writing about himself. It might be very useful that you are Peter Zed, because that means you probably know what newspapers and magazines have profiled you, and what books have been written about you. Or, if none have been written yet, you could simply say, "I'm afraid you're right that I don't meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, and save us all a little effort. I can't find the article about you at either of the links you mentioned; the Pro Wrestling Torch link doesn't appear to mention your name, nor does the Frank Magazine link, unless I'm looking in the wrong place. Certainly neither of them is an article that you are the subject of. It might help you to look at the reference section of our article on Dave Meltzer to see what a well-referenced article about a wrestling journalist looks like. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:42, 22 March 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/Peter_Zed&oldid=1082413391"