Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brenton Lengel

Brenton Lengel

Brenton Lengel (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)

Subject lacks notability, and is not widely-recognized in any of the areas asserted in the article. The article claims the subject is best known for writing a play which received minor coverage from two indie sources, and has a twitter page with 8 followers. Generally, many of the sources constitute self-promotion and/or possibly paid material, such as a play review. However, whether or not these sources were indeed self-promotional in nature is moot, as the subject does not meet the test for notability that would be expected of a notable playwright. Upon searching for the subject's work, one of his performances was seen on youtube, which was not very well attended or widely viewed (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIHqAmNTSH4). Sources for activism notability include a youtube video with 48 views of the subject walking down the street during an occupy protest, and some insignificant coverage.}}. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esoteric10 (talk • contribs)

• Delete His play on the Appalachian Trail might be notable (although that I am doubtful of) but he clearly is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:35, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

• Keep Criteria for notability: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." indie sources are not mentioned, just that the sources be independent. Similarly Wikipedia Does Not Care How Many Friends You Have: "the number of fans, followers or "friends" (in the Facebook sense of the word) the subject of a biographical article has accumulated is brought up as an argument. **This information is irrelevant** and citing it ought to be considered an argument to avoid."

There are not "Two indie sources" one of the many cited sources is the Appalachian Trail Conservancy , which is the national non-profit which oversees the entire Appalachian Trail. That's not Indie, that's an American Institution. There is also an Interview on the Manhattan News Network , which is local television for New York City, the youtube views are irrelevant because it's just a copy of the broadcast which went out to a city of more than 9 million people. Another source is the Associated Press, not Indie and even if it was as previously stated "Indie" is irrelevant, it's independent published secondary sources which is the criteria which has been met. Subject is also mentioned in an article on Salon by Natasha Leonard. Subject has print publications via Smith and Kraus Publishing and the play was produced by The American Theatre of Actors on 54th Street. Another source is from the blog of Rogue, the lead singer of the Cruxshadows and another source is a press release featuring a quote about Subject by Edward Tyll a famous radio personality who's been around for decades. Another source is Huffpost Live, which is nearly network television.

Also, if you look at the edit history of the page, this position has been backed up by multiple independent wiki editors, when Esoteric10 put it up for speedy deletion multiple times :

"(cur | prev) 22:23, 19 April 2016‎ Adam9007 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (16,372 bytes) (-15)‎ . . (Undid revision 716096021 by Esoteric10 (talk) Article credibly asserts significance. It's a lower standard than notability.) (undo) (cur | prev) 21:32, 19 April 2016‎ Esoteric10 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (16,387 bytes) (+15)‎ . . (participating in the occupy movement and writing screenplays does not pass the test for noteworthiness.) (undo) (cur | prev) 05:05, 18 April 2016‎ Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant (talk | contribs)‎ . . (16,372 bytes) (0)‎ . . (→‎Journalism) (undo) (cur | prev) 05:05, 18 April 2016‎ Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant (talk | contribs)‎ . . (16,372 bytes) (+4)‎ . . (→‎Collaboration with Rogue) (undo) (cur | prev) 05:03, 18 April 2016‎ Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant (talk | contribs)‎ . . (16,368 bytes) (-1)‎ . . (speedy declined, makes credible claim of significance) (undo)"

Finally, The criteria for notability for creative professionals is:

"The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors."

Yes. Edward Tyll, Kentucky State Poet Laureate Gurney Norman, Rogue of the Cruxshadows.

"The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique."

Yes. Wrote the First Play About the Appalachian Trail.

"The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."

Yes. Multiple independent periodicals and reviews

"The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums."

Yes. The play running for three weeks at the American Theatre of Actors is a "significant exhibition" as are the readings at Dragon*Con.

You can't reasonably argue that someone who's covered by the Associated Press, the Appalachian Trail Conservancy, Salon, The Huffington Post, is in direct collaboration with a major international rock star with hundreds of thousands of fans worldwide who topped the International Dance Charts over songs by Madonna and Beyonce in 2005, hiked the entire Appalachian Trail and participated with distinction in a major cultural touchstone like Occupy Wall Street isn't notable. Also, subject meets all the criteria for notability for creative professionals.

There is absolutely no criteria for deletion. Subject is notable and the article credibly asserts significance. Plankhead (talk) 03:38, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• Addendum Just to answer a few charges here:

" Generally, many of the sources constitute self-promotion and/or possibly paid material, such as a play review."

Theatre reviews are not paid for, and though quotes from them can be used for promotion by subject or subjects company independently, they were not used for promotion in Subject's article, they were simply used to establish credibility and notability, as reviews are one of the criteria for creative professionals notability.

"one of his performances was seen on youtube, which was not very well attended or widely viewed (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIHqAmNTSH4)"

This is a performance at The Flea Theatre performed by the Bats, their resident acting company. A second source backs this up This is the standard production level for that company and an off-off-broadway 99 or less seat theatre could easily have been considered "well attended" as well as fulfilling the criteria the notability criteria of significant exhibition due to the Flea's prestige.

Youtube video only used to source the existence of the play, as it is not listed on Subject's website.

"Sources for activism notability include a youtube video with 48 views of the subject walking down the street during an occupy protest, and some insignificant coverage.}"

This youtube video is an archive depicting an arrest via a prominent OWS livestreamer. Views do not matter because Wikipedia Doesn't Care How Many Friends you Have. It is used to establish the time that the arrest took place and involved another activist and backed up with NYS legal documents surrounding the case. It is not simply "walking down the street" and other sources for Activism include The Associated Press, Metro NY, Salon, The Star Ledger, Valley Free Radio, and the KKRP broadcast of the Cecily McMillian interview inside Rikers Island. None of which can be considered "some insignificant coverage". Penitentiary Plankhead (talk) 18:02, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

[Delete Vote & Per Removed as Esoteric10 is nominator if this article and thus has already voted] The rationales provided by the poster above (who is presumably the subject of the article) are wholly inadequate to meet the general test for notability. See: WP:GNG. Also, is there stated policy against the subject of the article that is being nominated for deletion being able to vote on keeping their own article? Seems like a bit of a conflict of interest to me. Esoteric10 (talk) 06:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Request Speedy Keep 1) User Esoteric 10 cannot vote a second time and cannot "Delete" or vote "Per nomination", let alone both Because Esoteric10 IS the original nominator. You can't vote to agree with your own vote (see Misc. Advice)

2) User Esoteric10 has now accused me of being the Subject. This is ridiculous, look at my edit history, I've been around for years Esoteric10's accusation is a violation of Assume Good Faith.

3) There is no stated policy against an author of an article voting on their own article. It's patently ridiculous to put an article up for deletion and refuse the author a voice in the process. Also votes are mostly irrelevant as Wikipedia is Not a Democracy and votes themselves are not the primary criteria for deletion. The criteria is "Does X Article conform to the rules" which, as I have established, it does. Votes are only one way with which Administrator's judge consensus.

3) Since my own Good Faith has been called into question, I'll point out that nearly all of Esoteric10's edits are far-right libertarian, anarcho-capitalist, bitcoin etc. as such, they have a vested political interest in taking down an article about an anarcho-communist, and in fact has been the only one trying repeatedly to take it down since the 17th.

All of this together: the objection to only minor sources while ignoring major ones, the failure to properly tag the initial nomination followed by voting for and agreeing with that same nomination, the User History and the repeat attempts at taking down the article in multiple ways along with the violation of AGF have demonstrated Esoteric10 to be behaving in Bad Faith as such, I request a Speedy Keep.Plankhead (talk) 18:07, 28 April 2016 (UTC)