Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brandon Freels
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Block compress error; pending deletion. Joyous 02:30, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
Brandon Freels[edit]
- Delete Extremely Non-Notable The article was created by an Anon, 141.219.44.182, a member of the Portland Surrealist Group and friend of Brandon Freels as a means for web-promotion. The article is also a means of advertising this unknown, "author" of two chapbooks! The kind that sell for under $5.00. There is around 900 plus google hits for this Brandon Freels, who shares the same name as a Gamer, who is probably the one getting the share of google hits. Another Surrealismcruft Stealth Ad and Vanity Page written for a friend! Plus, I cannot find any credible and legitimate reference source from any notable sources, such as literary critics and literary reviews (no backslapping praises from bogus independent unknowns, either please!) that can tell us anything solid. A marginal and certainly to be considered as spam. Notice that this is also a member of the Portland Surrealist Group, where an anon yesterday went and removed the VfD tag from that article, (check that pages history).Classicjupiter2 17:31, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Once again you make assertions (141.219.44.182 is a member of the Portland Surrealist Group) without providing any basis for them, and thus these statements are entitled to be given the weight they deserve, which is to be utterly ignored. I would say that we should ignore everything here until you provide some support. Furthermore, putting "author" in quotes shows you don't know what quotation marks are for. He's the author of them, no matter how worthless they are. And why do you care how much books sell for? Keep until you bring up some actual, marginally-supported argument. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:08, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Noted. Dan, you just stated, "He's the author of them, no matter how worthless they are." You did just state that fact, and after looking at the obvious, with your own admission above, "worthless", all the more reason to delete! Are we going to give articles to everyone that all of a sudden is a self-described author? Dan, I want to work with you on this, but after what you just stated above, well, it is kind of downhill from there, you know.Classicjupiter2 18:17, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Any person with a brain would be able to correctly interpret this statement. It's not saying they are worthless, not saying they are valuable, not making any kind of statement on their quality. And what on earth do you mean by "self-described author"? "Author" isn't some kind of honorific; it just means that someone has written something, of whatever quality from horrible to wonderful. Your seemingly deliberate misinterpretation of my statement shows that the last thing you are interested in doing is working with me. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:46, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Oh brother! Take a look at who just removed (AGAIN) the VfD Notice tag from the Wikipedia article on the Portland Surrealist Group!!! Look at the history.
note that this is the second time that an ANON removed the VfD notice tag from that article. Classicjupiter2 18:24, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Comment (no vote from me on this one): I find 375 hits for "Brandon Freels" without the word "Wikipedia". I note that poems by Brandon Freels have been published in Exquisite Corpse, a literary magazine of some note. I'll leave it to other Wikipedians to decide if this constitutes adiquate notability. I urge our Surrealist (or "Surrealism influenced") friends not to remove vfd notices from articles if those were placed according to proper Wikipedia VFD procedures. Continued removals of such will be considered vandalism and dealt with accordingly. -- Infrogmation 18:32, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- P.S.: If it is decided to delete this article, Image:BrandonFreels.jpg should be deleted at the same time. -- Infrogmation 21:34, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- noted, Infrogmation, about the Exquisite Corpse regarding publishing poems by Brandon Freels. Let it also be noted that this publication also accepts Submissions from New Writers, as indicated here, http://www.corpse.org/submit/index.html
- As does practically every other magazine known to man. What's your point? --Daniel C. Boyer 20:23, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Granted, Infrogmation, anyone here on Wikipedia can write up something, make up a resume of website submitted poetry, state they are a writer and then submit to Exquisite Corpse, but are they notable? Infrogmation, you too can submit to Exquisite Corpse, as can I. The facts presented to the Wikipedia Community are clear, Brandon Freels is a new writer, a self-identified (or self-labeled), "surrealist" and he wrote two chapbooks that sell for under $5 dollars. His chapbooks did get picked as, "Powell's staff picks", Powells is big bookseller store (kind of like a Barnes and Nobles) in Portland, Oregon., and wouldn't you know it, (talk about convenience!) Brandon Freels is from Portland, Oregon! I wonder if he works at Powells bookstore where his chapbooks are labeled as, "Powells staff picks". Hey Dan, do you have the dirt on this?Classicjupiter2 19:16, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Please refrain from personal criticism, speculation, asking other users questions not of strict relevence, and similar rambles on VFD voting pages. -- Infrogmation 19:26, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, I think. Your vendetta tone makes it hard to tease out the issues, ClassicJupiter2--it doesn't really do your argument any favors. In general, authors published in non-vanity presses are notable (or at least, that seems to be the precedent. I'm not sure it's true). However, this seems to be highly local. Is there any evidence these books are sold and read outside the Portland area? Just as a band with only local appeal is not notable, I think I have to come down on that side here. But I'd change my vote if it were demonstrated otherwise. Demi 19:58, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with Demi. However, there's quite obviously some sort of feud going on here, and VfD really isn't the place for it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:18, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, vanity ad, part of a wider spam attempt. Wyss 00:41, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete vanity more appropriate for a user page. --Deathphoenix 01:06, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable, vanity. What's up with all these surrealist nominations? Megan1967 06:47, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Why do people keep describing it as vanity when there's never even been a suggestion that Freels is the author of all or a significant part of this article? He may be non-notable, that's debatable, but I think we should discount all the "vanity" claims. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:26, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I said it's vanity because that's what I think it is. Wyss 15:10, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- On what basis? There is a general problem in Wikipedia, which one would expect to have some sort of objectivity, in which unsupported feelings that certain articles are "vanity" are the basis for possible deletion. In my opinion we should confine ourselves to the non-notability argument unless and until we have some basis for thinking this is vanity. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:45, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Whether an article is true vanity or merely non-notable barely matters, and to some degree the two are almost interchangable when talking about extremely obscure subjects. If a Kindergardener was going to write an article about how he's the all-time hopscotch champ at recess, would it really matter if he wrote the article himself or got his brother or best friend to do it? Either way, it would still be, in a sense, vanity. If an article is about a hoplessly obscure subject, the term "vanity" can be used, even without a signed confession from the article writer. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:08, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
- What you're really promoting is a dilution of the integrity of Wikipedia. Absent any reasonable basis to believe or suspect that the subject of an article, or, more loosely, a friend, relative or associate wrote it, we shouldn't call it vanity, whether it "barely matters" or not. Your saying that an article about a hopelessly obscure subject can be called "vanity" is an endorsement of playing fast and loose, even an endorsement of dishonesty by recklessness. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:09, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Well, fast and loose is how the game gets played here. This is VfD, not Dragnet... nobody here has time to do hours of research and detective work such as tracing IPs and the like to "prove" vanity. If it looks like vanity, smells like vanity, and the subject is thouroughly not-notable, chances are that, yep, it's vanity, no signed confession required. If we're wrong once in ten thousand times, so be it... it doesn't damage the integrity of WP any more than the supposed vanity article would have if kept. It's true that "vanity" can sometimes mean "the article subject has admitted that they themselves wrote the article", but far more often it's actually shorthand for "the article subject is so hopelessly obscure that I believe that only the subject themselves (or possibly family or friends) could have written it". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:44, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
- What you're really promoting is a dilution of the integrity of Wikipedia. Absent any reasonable basis to believe or suspect that the subject of an article, or, more loosely, a friend, relative or associate wrote it, we shouldn't call it vanity, whether it "barely matters" or not. Your saying that an article about a hopelessly obscure subject can be called "vanity" is an endorsement of playing fast and loose, even an endorsement of dishonesty by recklessness. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:09, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Whether an article is true vanity or merely non-notable barely matters, and to some degree the two are almost interchangable when talking about extremely obscure subjects. If a Kindergardener was going to write an article about how he's the all-time hopscotch champ at recess, would it really matter if he wrote the article himself or got his brother or best friend to do it? Either way, it would still be, in a sense, vanity. If an article is about a hoplessly obscure subject, the term "vanity" can be used, even without a signed confession from the article writer. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:08, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
- On what basis? There is a general problem in Wikipedia, which one would expect to have some sort of objectivity, in which unsupported feelings that certain articles are "vanity" are the basis for possible deletion. In my opinion we should confine ourselves to the non-notability argument unless and until we have some basis for thinking this is vanity. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:45, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable. Ad. Likely vanity. Amazon sales rank of Freels Comes Alive, #1,580,100; of Who the Hell is Brandon Freels, #1,679,819. Amazon sales rank of one self-published book which is known to have sold less than fifty copies total, #1,204,605. My personal guideline is that a sales rank under 250,000 is non-notable. Sales rank numbers over a million are characteristic self-published or vanity press or highly specialized academic titles. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:00, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable. Jonathunder 04:13, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.