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. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 06:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John J. Powers(Writer & Comedian)

John J. Powers(Writer & Comedian) (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)

Though I wish him all the best, Mr Powers does not currently meet the requirements of WP:BIO. Pichpich (talk) 23:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'd really like to encourage that anyone coming on here due to Powers' posts on Facebook or Twitter posts look through our policies for notability and read through the delete comments posted above. Any and all people on Wikipedia must pass our notability guidelines. The existence of other articles that do not pass notability guidelines only means that they haven't been caught and deleted yet. The deletion of this article (if it happens) will be based upon coverage in reliable sources and does not reflect on the merits or ability of Powers, just on how much coverage he has received in reliable sources. Existing is not notability and I'd also like to emphasize that personal attacks or disparaging remarks on Wikipedia editors will not save the article and will only ensure that your arguments towards inclusion will likely be disregarded. Any arguments that fall along the lines of "I like Powers", "He's obviously notable because ___" or anything on Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions will most likely not help sway the deletion discussion because this ultimately isn't a vote and these things are closed based upon the strength of arguments that follow our guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable individual. Likely autobiography that reads like a resume. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. You know the article is usually deletion worthy when the disambiguation in the title is that botched. Non-notable individual, fails WP:GNG. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 00:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 00:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 00:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 00:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John J. Powers (Writer & Comedian) had significant roles in films and has a large fan base. He has more than 12,000 followers on Twitters and his comedy and writings are appreciated. So, his page should not be deleted. Botching up his disambiguation is the issue with the editor who created the page not of John's. Articles on much less popular persons are on Wikipedia. John deserves a page on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarada14 (talk • contribs) 01:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • A person can have a lot of Twitter followers, but that isn't how we judge a large fan base. We judge the fan base by how much coverage they have received. For an example of what type of a fanbase you'd need to have this person pass notability guidelines, take a look at the fanbase for say, Rocky Horror Picture Show or My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic. I'll be honest- we've had a lot of people with a larger fanbase than Powers' fail notability guidelines, as can be seen with Goddess Bunny. She's even had a documentary filmed about her, yet she has never gained the coverage necessary to gain an article. As far as other people having articles that are less popular, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't really go for much here. A lesser popular person might have gained coverage enough to merit an article or they might not merit an article at all... and just hasn't been noticed and nominated for deletion just yet. As far as film roles go, the role is only as notable as the film is. Sometimes, rarely, a role can gain more notice than the film but in general if a film or series or whatnot hasn't received coverage to show notability, the roles (no matter if they're major or minor) will not give notability. I'll see what I can find, but offhand I'll say that none of these arguments will really keep the article as a whole. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess what I'm trying to say in a nutshell is that you can say that someone passes all of the notability guidelines, but you have to prove it via reliable sources that pass Wikipedia's guidelines. IMDb is not a reliable source. The amount of Twitter followers isn't a RS either. A reliable source would be something such as a news article about him in a place that isn't affiliated with Powers. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:50, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. The problem is that despite the claims of notability, Powers hasn't actually received any coverage to show that he's really all that notable per Wikipedia's guidelines. I want to stress Wikipedia's guidelines, which are very strict. Someone can be popular enough but never gain notability per our guidelines. Another person I want to hold up as an example of failing notability guidelines would be Harry Partridge. He has just over half a million followers on YouTube, 28,000 followers on Twitter, and more on other social media sites. He's animated for BBC... yet has never passed notability guidelines for his own article. That's how strict notability guidelines are on Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm all in favor for adding more and more individuals on the Wikipedia database, but not even 1 source is cited for such a long text. There is no way this can be accepted as a reliable article. --Tco03displays (talk) 05:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have found and added two third party references to the article, which I believe warrant consideration for keeping the biography. --Rvstoltz (talk) 09:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PR Web is a press release service so the content you read there about John Powers is written and paid for John Powers. It's most definitely not a third-party source. Pichpich (talk) 16:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So what do you have to do to get a wikipage - if existing sources are not enough? It really seems as though alot of effort & attention is going towards denying this actor a page. Why? The misinformation I read daily on various Wikipedia entries is staggering - Tokyogirl79 is coming across as a scorned ex-girlfriend rather than a impartial 'editor'- I would like verification she is NOT. I'm a registered user - but my user id is not working for some reason. Signed, Steve Benjamin-nyc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.196.176 (talk) 16:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think TokyoGirl79 already explained it well, but I can reiterate it more bluntly: until reliable sources take notice of the person and devote significant coverage to him, he fails our criteria for inclusion. This means a full-length article in The New York Times or The Village Voice, for example. Also see WP:42, which is an informal summation. By the way, personal attacks will get you nowhere. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have found another third party reference (as has been requested) which makes reference to Mr. Powers. --Rvstoltz (talk) 13:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The latest sources that you added to the article seem legit, but I've got bad news. What you've got now is a person famous for a single event. At best, this is worthy of a mention on the Citi Bike article, not a reason to keep this article. In my opinion, those articles are about the event, not the person. A review of his work, retrospective on his career, or interview with him would be better. If you can find those, then I'll change my vote. Web sites that employ him do not count. They're paid to say nice things about him. It has to be an independent source, like a magazine or newspaper. PR doesn't count, either. That's written by him or his representatives. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete. I have followed Mr. Powers' blog for some time now and have heard commentary on RUFKM. Additionally, I caught one of his most recent performances in Long Island. It may be time to consider revising your standards for current artists. BHBlair (talk) 16:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)— BHBlair (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Do Not Delete. I live in NYC and his CitiBike article was a very big deal. He touched on privacy issues and the nanny-state that New York City is becoming. He also had a feud with Al Roker. He may not be Dane Cook, but he is a notable person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.228.157.202 (talk)
  • It all boils down to coverage. Now the thing about feuds is that you'd have to show that Powers has had a lot of coverage about the feud. I couldn't really find anything to show that this feud is really notable. I'm not saying that it didn't exist, just that nobody really gave it any attention. Now when it comes to someone being involved with someone that is notable in any way, that notability is not inherited by that association. Being in a feud with Roker would make it more likely that it'd gain coverage (and by extend, Powers gain coverage), but that's not a guarantee of coverage. Even if you had 1-2 reliable sources, you'd have to show that the coverage was extensive enough to be more than just a trivial feud of little true consequence. In other words, you'd have to have feuds along the lines of what you see in articles such as Hip hop feud. Behind the scenes feuding doesn't really give notability regardless of how heated or nasty it gets. Part of this is because until we have coverage in RS, it's mostly based on rumors and hearsay- something we have to avoid here for legal reasons. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the sources is linked to Powers' own page, which has a bit of an issue with copyvio. The thing about radio shows is that those are sometimes dubious as sources because of several reasons: people argue that interviews qualify as primary sources (which I don't necessarily agree with), that the person isn't covered in-depth (something I also don't always agree with), or that they're really not the focus of the spot and have been brought in to commentate on another topic (one of the most common arguments). There are other arguments that people use, such as the tone of the spot interfering with how we'd consider the source (casual versus semi-serious interview)- it's pretty hard to show a radio show as a RS, which is why so many people consider them to be so depreciated. I'd be willing to argue for this as a potentially reliable source, although I will note that Powers doesn't seem to be the actual focus of the interview as a whole. The other source wouldn't really be a reliable source to show notability. Most podcasts don't count towards notability regardless of how popular they might be. Now one thing to think about: the page asserts the following: "John has won an Emmy for his graphic design work." Is this Emmy for Powers and can you back this up with a reliable source such as the Emmy website? Was it a group award or a single award? If it's a group award for a larger project then it might be argued that his name would redirect to whatever the project was, but it's a step in the right direction. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mean, essentially this is the sort of thing that should be what you're trying to find sources about and put on the page as opposed to his comedic career, which hasn't really gained that much attention in the long run. Emmy wins can save articles, but again- you'd have to show proof that he won the award as opposed to the award being given to an overall company he worked for. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Who is this guy? He got into a little argument with Al Roker, He has a blog, he wrote an article about Citibike, and he is an MC at a comedy club, and he is a comedian. uhm, HELLO? Delusional!!! You're not famous! Maybe you will become famous but fighting to keep an inorganic Wikipedia page alive is not the way it will happen. Get over it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SlocumSliders (talk • contribs) 07:41, 5 December 2013‎— SlocumSliders (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Who determines which argument has the most merit? TokyoGirl and Ninja are both responding to other users which is considered "disruptive." It seems like this guy has significant press coverage and has had an interview on TV. That's notable right? If people will use Wikipedia to gather info on the comedian behind the CitiBike hoax and the parody songs, this page should exist. Also, it is insulting to tell any artist that their work is not notable so it is understandable that this guy would rally support from social media. The fact that his fans are speaking up is a testament to his legitimacy in the landscape of public personalities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.30.194 (talk) 03:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The arguments that have the most merits are the ones that follow the guidelines for notability per WP:NACTOR. The problem in a nutshell is that Powers lacks coverage in places that would be considered reliable sources per Wikipedia's guidelines. Now when it comes to insulting, it's unfortunate that people take our notability guidelines that way. It's not meant to be insulting, just that over time we've had so many people come on here to create articles that the guidelines (which were approved by a large group of Wikipedia users) have become exceedingly exclusive. That means that people who might be "net famous" or famous within a certain niche would fail notability guidelines. You're welcome to solicit changes at Wikipedia talk:Notability, but I'll warn you that things are unlikely to change to where Powers would be included for just the videos or the CitiBike hoax. Again I'll say that if someone can show that Powers specifically received an Emmy win, that would help establish notability for him. As far as myself and other editors responding, it's not considered disruptive to try to explain why a certain argument made by a new/IP editor does not fall within what type of arguments will keep an article on Wikipedia. The reason we make these arguments is because if an argument made by any editor does not fulfill notability guidelines (which always boils down to coverage in RS that proves the claims made) then it won't keep the article regardless of how many people on here come to say that an article should be kept. I've seen articles deleted with just one delete rationale because the weight of the deletion argument. The same can come from one person making a very good "keep" rationale, but it must absolutely fall within our guidelines for notability proved by reliable sources. I'm sorry if Powers' feelings or the feelings of any fans were hurt by this AfD, but we can't keep an article because it would make someone happy. We have to keep an article based on notability guidelines. I can't stress that enough and people coming on here to post "keep" votes without reading over the notability guidelines and trying to find coverage in reliable sources that would be considered a RS per Wikipedia's guidelines does not really help anything. That's why we keep responding to people saying "keep", in the hopes that maybe someone will actually find RS that show notability. So again- if you can find sources for the Emmy nomination that show that Powers received the nomination and not as part of a larger corporation, (ie, the win specifically names him as part of the team) then that would help show notability for him. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have heard of this guy. He is pretty big in NYC. Not sure why you don't think he's notable. The NYC comedy scene and entertainment scene all know him. John Powers has been on the scene of comedy for 10 plus years in New York and Florida, He's an Emmy Award winner for his work at ESPN, an accomplished singer song writer, guitarist, you want him on your wall you need him on your wall. He's the real deal and I totally promote and stand up for him. Pcareccia (talk) 22:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)— Pcareccia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Moving this here from the other page, as it won't be seen there. In any case, please find a reliable source that proves that he got the Emmy. I tried finding it and all I can find are WP:PRIMARY sources by Powers that say that he got the Emmy. I can't find any real notification on the Emmy site that says that he was part of a team that received the Emmy. The thing to remember is that he has to be listed on the Emmy win as one of the primary people associated with the graphic. For example, if you scroll through this announcement of the 34th Emmys, you'll see that the Emmy win names four people. It's obvious that they weren't the only people on the team, but they were the main people that were named in relation to the Emmy. Being part of the unnamed team for the group that won doesn't really count as winning an Emmy in the same way that being named on the Emmy website would. You have to have some sort of verification about this sort of thing, otherwise it's just a claim and we have no way of verifying how much Powers actually worked on the title card. I'm willing to work with people, but you have to show proof via reliable sources. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • He may or may not be notable. He just hasn't been shown to be notable. There might be 10,000 articles about him in the Gothamist, he might have kissed 50,000 babies, and he might be the next Emperor Norton. At the moment all that has been shown so far is a clear case of WP:BLP1E. If someone can document a couple more notable events it should be an easy article tos ave under WP:HEY. If you think he's notable then spend ten minutes and prove it. If he's a living person who's adept with social media and ten minutes doesn't prove it then he's probably not ultimately that notable at this point (and WP:CRYSTAL is fairly clear about the future). Neonchameleon (talk) 19:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If you're not making a living as a standup comedian, you don't deserve to be credited as one on Wikipedia. Anyone can do standup and call themselves a comedian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.228.157.87 (talk) 19:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoah there. This is not a place for attacks against Powers. How much one makes as a comedian does not qualify or disqualify their ability to call themselves as such. The amount of money someone makes also doesn't equate to notability- someone can be dirt poor and still be considered notable as long as they have coverage. Please refrain from making deletion arguments that come across as personal attacks. AfD arguments should fall within the guidelines for notability, as seen in arguments such as the one below by Walter Görlitz. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 13:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting comment On the face of things, the subject appears non-notable (and this may well be the ultimate consensus with reference to policies). However, I found a few other points to note, so will do so below shortly. Thanks in anticipation of your patience. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 13:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Previous incarnations of this article were:
This is probably still looking like delete but I think it warrants further time/discussion in order consider this collective new information. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 14:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Trevj: that link is clearly unrelated to the subject and was written in 1987. Pichpich (talk) 14:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and sorry for carelessly missing the 1987 date. However, I still feel that the other AfD and pervious article incarnations are worth noting. If consensus is evident before the 7 days are up then there's no reason why this can't be closed before then. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 14:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't find sufficient sources to provide evidence of notability, though I may change my mind if he's the same John J Powers who wrote Disneyland und Deutschland about Hitler's meeting with Walt Disney[2]; that play (despite consensus about its awfulness) has got more press than this comedian. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:31, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - With fans as dedicated as these, it won't be long before Mr. Powers generates enough press in reliable sources to pass GNG but for now after looking through this discussion and the sources I can't say that's the case now. It seems 95% of the keep arguments fall into Arguments to Avoid. --— Rhododendrites talk |  22:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication of wp:notability. Two of the "references" aren';t even references ( links to a youtube video and a podcast) and the other two are just about the hoax he perpetrated. North8000 (talk) 03:10, 13 December 2013 (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.
Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_J._Powers(Writer_%26_Comedian)
No tags for this post.