Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oliver Richman

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. Jujutacular (talk) 18:58, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Oliver Richman

Oliver Richman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Notability seems marginal at best, doesn't seem to be anything substantial other than youtube hits and notable relatives, entire article reads more like a promotional bio than an encyclopedia article, and no real sources beyond a few fluff press releases and blog reviews Jac16888 ^Talk 01:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  Gong show 01:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  Gong show 01:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  Gong show 01:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• Weak keep per these sources: 1 2 3. These could be just simple promotional stuff, which is why my vote's a weak one. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 18:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• The first one is maybe borderline, the second two are clearly press-releases by the subjects PR (note that the same articles can be found on more than one website)--Jac16888 ^Talk 18:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• the first is also a pr piece, by LUCK Media & Marketing. Also available on the Business Wire. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• Delete. Lacks independent coverage. This is one big advert. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
• Help Requested. Could I ask for assistance with how this article should be worded so that we can keep our (many hours) of work putting it together? I've been reviewing other Wiki articles with Oliver's managers and felt we were following protocol. We felt the newly added References would help to establish credibility, but we will remove those if you feel they don't do this. I would be grateful for any direction. Oliver's most recent work is his role in the new Craig Robinson sitcom which has been picked up by NBC for a possible mid-season replacement. He is also working on another New Media pilot "Captain Bill's" produced by Michael Zack and Alessandra Ascoli. Thank you in advance for any help! jquinn33 (talk) 04:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: The problem isn't with how the article is worded, it's a question of whether the subject is notable by Wikipedia's standards: as well as the general notability guideline, the guidelines for entertainers are at WP:ENTERTAINER and for musicians at WP:MUSIC. Since this individual is still living, the Biographies of living persons policy must be followed. In addition, Mr. Richman's managers should not be involved in editing any articles on him or his work, per the conflict of interest guideline. And if you are working that closely with them, you may have a conflict of interest, in which case you should not be working on this article either. — Gwalla | Talk 22:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Collasping per WP:WALLOFTEXT

We object to deletion of this article on the following grounds: Wikipedia prides itself that it is factual and objective. However, many of the "facts" about our famous family (Buddy Hackett, Sandy Hackett, Peter Mark Richman, Ron Miller), written by non-managers, etc. are WRONG....this evidences Wikipedia's total inability to manage accuracy over its content...better to let strangers contribute to an article, making it totally inaccurate. Instead, Wiki has exercised its censorship power by deciding, based on its employee's opinions (rather than the public's), what is "notable" and what is not. Obviously, this is subjective and NOT at all objective or factually based, but rather someone's misguided, skewed opinion. Our dealings with Wikipedia (we have had other issues - this is not an isolated case) have been less than professional, often dealing with clerks who are sarcastic, power-hungry and biased. This is evidence that the so-called online "objective, factually based" encyclopedia is nothing more than groups of subordinates who support each other's skewed and misguided opinions. The clearly ineffective idea that total strangers with inaccurate information with possible hidden agendas have the freedom to alter the public's opinion, simply by typing in whatever they like, while people with accurate knowledge of articles they deem "notable" are prohibited, is a new kind of censorship - clearly a DANGER to readers everywhere. Obviously, the subordinates at Wikipedia have opinions which they deem more important than the public-at-large. When it became clear to us that Wikipedia would impose it's own "opinion" about what people want to read by determining what is "notable" and what is "not" and that they opened our article up for "debate" (a forum in which their subordinates can exercise their "opinion," power and agenda), we did go ahead and delete the content on our article, as we do not want to subject an innocent child to the negative, lynch mob which allows and encourages support for its own frenzy. To our surprise, the article content was restored by Wikipedia so that its judgement of whether or not an innocent child is "notable" enough can continue to be debated "publicly" (actually, amongst Wikipedia subordinates). Not only do "we, the people," have absolutely NO control over the purported and "promoted" objective online encyclopedia, which defines its existence by allowing the public to think that its content is informational, and open for public debate, we have absolutely NO control as to whether or not we wish to have an article on their godawful, inaccurate, hypocritical, purported online objective website. If Wikipedia finds a so-called forum in which to release the stress of their subordinates, they have the right to do the exact opposite of what birthed this so-called forum to begin with - anything to keep the lynch mob feeding. I request that a new forum be opened for "public" debate in which "we, the people" can judge Wikipedia's policies and justify the existence of the people over on the other end reading this right now. If Wikipedia is truly as objective as it states that it is, let's open a new forum. I, for one, as well as many others I know, will be very happy to "debate" the process in which individuals are chosen and/or allowed to determine the future of articles of interest to the public-at-large as well as other Wikipedia defects. In our case, if Wikipedia wants to delete this article, I guess that is its option. However, unable to delete an article WE started and which no one else has made updates to besides Wiki admin, when we remove the content (due to their warnings) and it is simply put back without our consent, that becomes a legal matter for our attorney regarding our legal rights - something, at which point, Wikipedia will have to answer for - we ALL answer to a court of law - yes, even Wikipedia. Wikipedia can either 1) keep this article up and delete its warnings - allowing "we, the people" to contribute to an article we deem "notable" or; 2) delete this article, as it warned it would do and we will can simply call it a day. If not, it is requested that you immediately post your justification for allowing this lynch mob to continue (this would allow for a "real" debate about Wikipedia), as Wikipedia obviously does not want or believe (according to its "policy") that this article should remain. It is currently unclear as to what reason then, (other than lynch mobbing) justifies the purpose that this article remains, considering the circumstances and facts of this case, other than to allow Wikipedia contributors to voice their "subjective" opinions while others are unable to effect any change at all, regardless of their "opinions." Further, it is also requested that any legal basis and authority Wikipedia asserts in this case, be posted as well. This is the real debate. Any "contributors" out there who have had similar censorship issues with the "others" (purported "contributors"....although I'm not sure what they contribute other than creating self-serving forums or purported "discussions") on the other side of Wikipedia, please post your comments, as is our turn to sit in judgement of them and get our lynch mob going. DO NOT REMOVE this post. It is important that this message remains so that the public-at-large can determine whether or not Wikipedia is a new form of censorship disguised as an objective, informational online website. The REMOVAL or DELETION of this post will prove my point and it will be reposted in some other Wikipedia "forum/discussion" which we deem to be more appropriate for this topic.

LisaDMillerHackett (talk) 23:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

That's quite a rant, I'm not going to go through and point out all the ways in which it is wrong but I will make a few comments, before which I will say please do not make legal threats. A) If the original creator of the articles wishes it deleted they are free to do so by nominating it for deletion under CSD:G7 - not by simply blanking it. B) You seem to misunderstand how Wikipedia works, there are no subordinates, clerks or employees - everybody is a volunteer with the same amount of editorial power - yourself included, and nobody has any right, legal or otherwise to a Wikipedia article (Wikipedia being a private website) C) it has been judged by some editors, myself included, that currently your son does not meet the requirements of our policies in order for him to have an article, had you taken the time to read some of our policies you would have discovered that this could have happened, likewise you would have learnt that you have absolutely zero control or ownership over an article - if you didn't want the article to be possibly deleted, you should not have created it. D) The presence of this article is clearly part of an attempt to promote the subject - something which we absolutely do not allow under any circumstance. E) You seem to be under the impression that this discussion is some kind of attack or "smear campaign" against your family. It is not. The simple fact is that thousands of Wikipedia articles are created everyday, most of them about people who are not particularly noteworthy - we can't have articles about everybody and his Grandma hence this discussion and the thousands of others like it. I would be happy to discuss this with you further, provided you can lay of the attacks, insults and threats--Jac16888 ^Talk 00:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Weak Delete Lisa's attempt to derail this entire discussion and the rampant conflict of interests issues aside, I've gone ahead and done a search for sources.

• Richman was featured on a morning show on a Fox News station here
• Richman was discussed by Lisa Dawn Miller (who is presumably the above editor) in an interview with Talent Spotlight Magazine here.
• He also has an interview here with Champagne Sundays Magazine.

The magazines are not particularly strong indicators of notability-- Talent Spotlight is his own mother talking about him. Champagne Sundays does not appear to be a particularly well-circulated or important publication. That leaves the Fox News interview, which is rather short, and basically constitutes an instance of having a single source with significant coverage. Sources currently in the article are either trivial mentions (i.e. here), unreliable (i.e. IMDB entries or this review blog), or are basically press releases (i.e. here). Some coverage is there, but it's generally too sparse, promotional, or unreliable and I can't support keeping the article on that basis. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 06:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

This is the wrong venue for discussing opinions, Texan or otherwise, on how Wikipedia fundamentally works.

Texas Court of Appeals 14th District rules that "Wikipedia is inherently "unreliable" - I understand why. See discussion below. This needs to be circulated more: http://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/2008/11/24/court-holds-that-wikipedia-entries-are-inherently-unreliable/ This is my last post regarding this issue, as I actually do have a real life. This response is not intended to be insulting but is rather, a response based on my experience in dealing with a Wikipedia community I do not believe works. If it is insulting, that means you are simply taking it personal which you advise the subjects of “notability” determination to reject. With regards to the first post (in response to mine above – I can’t refer to a specific person because everyone who posts on here has an unidentifiable, nameless handle and I challenge anyone to give me their real contact information since you all have mine). In response to A) I don’t have the time to follow a procedure I don’t agree with – it seems counterproductive to me. If you want to delete it, PLEASE do! That’s our goal too! B) This is America. Everyone in America has the right to file a civil legal against another party, period. However, deciding whether a case is “notable” (to use your terminology) or in the real world, has legal merit is not up to nameless volunteers, but rather, a court of law. It’s called the U.S. Judicial System. C) Then, delete it. There is NO purpose of this discussion. We all agree, however, our reasons differ. No one in our family including the administrators of the estates, myself included do NOT wish to have a Wikipedia page. EVERYTHING is incorrect in the articles of our famous family members. D) We do not view Wikipedia as a successful avenue to “promote” anything. The views to the subject’s article here (as well as other famous family members) are not “notable” or significant. The subject has already shared the stage with Stevie Wonder LIVE for 8000 people and appeared on major network television, including the nationally syndicated “Young Icons,” clearly more notable than Wikipedia. Regarding the “Grandma” remark, which apparently you don’t find insulting or “attacking” to write, I will make the assumption that you won’t find this insulting either: While apparently Wikipedia doesn’t let “everyone and their Grandma” have a Wikipedia page, they DO let everyone and the Grandma contribute to articles on subjects they know nothing about. This is evidenced by the inaccurate information that has been posted about our famous family – which is why we don’t want these pages on a source we consider highly unreliable. In response to the Weak one (last post), I have not attempted anything. I’ve succeeded in expressing a truthful perspective, based on fact not opinion. This has obviously gotten under someone’s skin by simply stating the facts and speaking the truth. Your attempt to give an appearance as though you’ve searched for reliable sources and your subjective opinion (and that’s all it is – is YOUR opinion), about the notability of those sources, contradicts your reference below to Wikipedia’s “conflict of interest issues” in which it is stated that: “COI is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia.” Further, “COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. When advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest.” This editor is trying to REMOVE this article and others of our famous family. We DON’T want to be on this purported encyclopedia. Further, this idea that Wikipedia contributors produce a “neutral, reliably sourced” encyclopedia is simply untrue and I can support this by stating that; A) the articles regarding other famous family members are grossly inaccurate; B) Whoever made the last entry was conveniently selective in choosing online sources regarding this article – leaving out major network television appearances, such as “Young Icons,” which is a nationally syndicated television show and making a determination that a morning FOX show is not noteworthy, when in fact, it is and this subject has appeared on several major network morning and other shows. It appears that Wikipedia contributors are anything BUT neutral, deciding for themselves what sources are “noteworthy,” then, if trying to advance their own agenda, as in this case (arguing for the sake of arguing – and accomplishing nothing), claim that any “noteworthy” sources, such as FOX or any other major network appears, are simply “unreliable.” It is blatantly obvious that a contributor can paint whatever story they want by stating that a if credible source is indeed “noteworthy,” it is simply is deemed “unreliable” and if the source is indeed “reliable,” it is simply deemed not “noteworthy.” Further, it is easy to omit reliable, noteworthy sources in order to advance one’s own agenda. C) Wikipedia is anything but “neutral.” When one of you don’t like what I’ve written, whether factual or not, you can simply mark my comments as a “wall of text” in which the Wikipedia definition states that my comments are “intentionally disruptive.” Again, who determines whether or not something is “disruptive?” My intent was not to be disruptive but rather, have an open, HONEST conversation about “policies” everyone seems to link to which have no method for applying such “policy” to one’s comments or text. In other words, anyone can state that one has a “conflict of interest” or is “being disruptive,” or that a post is “damaging” simply if a contributor doesn’t like what they are hearing. However, there is no process in which to determine what facts, if any, even support another contributor’s assessment or use of a “policy.” Therefore, this “neutral, reliable” online encyclopedia is run by unqualified people, with limited or no knowledge of, not only the article to which they contribute, but to “policies” in which they are not required to justify their application. Further, if someone doesn’t like what they read (in this case, judgments about themselves and their use of, or lack thereof, “policies,” rather than the individual and subjects THEY judge), they can simply, delete those comments and/or link to a policy where no determination by an objective party is actually made as to whether or not that policy even applies. My conclusion and resolution to all of this has not changed; A) please delete this article; B) please delete articles of all of our famous family members; C) My efforts here are a complete waste of time because someone with a nameless handle and computer to hide behind, will simply delete these comments and/or attach a link to a policy in which there is no reliable method to determine whether or not it applies; D) After researching cases involving Wikipedia, legal and otherwise, I have concluded that noteworthy, reputable, significant and reliable parties do NOT view Wikipedia as a reliable source of information, for all the reasons I stated above AND for the very specific comment posted above by one of the Wikipedia contributors regarding “grandmothers.” Wikipedia simply lets everyone and their grandmother edit an article, most of them unqualified to do so. Wikipedia contributors are an unreliable source of credible information and therefore, Wikipedia is unreliable and not noteworthy enough to be a reference regarding information about our family. E) Please delete ALL articles regarding our famous family.LisaDMillerHackett (talk) 03:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I have no interest in responding to the majority of your comments, which largely misinterpret or ignore completely the points I made, but I will say that "everybody and his Grandma" is not intended to be any kind of attack or personal comment, rather that it is a common phrase where I am from which simply means to "a lot of people". As I have already said, if you cool it with the agressive behaviour and stop taking this personally, read some of the pages you have been pointed to instead of googling how bad Wikipedia is, you might that you will get more assistance--Jac16888 ^Talk 16:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:NOTPROMOTION. The sources seem to indicate that it's WP:TOOSOON. -- Trevj (talk) 13:33, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
• Delete as I think that Trevj hit the nail on the head with WP:TOOSOON. Technical 13 (talk) 15:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - There is no question that this kid's family is famous (I loved the late comedian Buddy Hackett, FWIW), and that many of the said members are notable. I'm not sure about this kid, however. I recall that in the past we have tended to delete the articles of child performing artists of marginal notability. Bearian (talk) 20:27, 5 September 2013 (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.