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, still not notable and a new article under a new title won't change that. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Kennedy (Writer)[edit]

Sean Kennedy (Writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

An article on a person who has twice been the subject of successful AfD nominations in recent months (in March 2007 and April 2007). Though the person in question, Sean Kennedy, has since self-published a book through lulu.com, he continues to fail notability. Victoriagirl 02:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete: G4 as repost. Looking at the last version deleted at the April AfD, this looks like it asserts even less notability. It's not the same article, it's the same article chopped down to a substub. I didn't tag this one myself, but if it is a G4, then this needs to go. Barring that, delete, since it's the same notability, sources, etc., and the self-published book adds nothing to either. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, this appears to be the only contribution of User:Zerodivision. Trying to assume good faith, but this might be a single purpose account due to the edit summary A fresh start for a previously deleted article.. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the good faith. I have been anonymously fixing typos and adding to articles for a year, and finally made this account so I could add new articles. I was under the impression that the previous version of this article was deleted primarily because it was not neutral (it seemed mostly copied and pasted from Sean's personal opinionated websites by his fans), so I attempted to deliver neutral facts with sufficient notability. In my opinion this article doesn't fail notability and I think you're making it way too difficult. However, I was unaware of the G4 rule and this certainly seems to qualify for that. What good are rules if they're not followed, eh? (that's not sarcasm, I really didn't read the guidelines first) Zerodivision 07:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• If a Sean Kennedy article isn't worth it, why not redirect it to Rant Media if that is? 124.168.38.183 07:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - db-bio. andy 12:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't delete The page is currently in a sorry state and needs to be reverted to a much better date or fixed, but it is noteworthy. I use Sean Kennedy's entry as a reference point quite often. Looking for some information on it today I saw it was up for deletion and thought I should speak out. He is a published author, internet radio / video personality, leader of the WOG movement. Deleting or simply redirecting it to Rant Radio would be a mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.45.90.16 (talk • contribs)
• Speedy G4, per the rules. I personally think Sean Kennedy is notable enough (as an internet personality) to be included in Wikipedia; but voters in the last 2 AfDs did not consider his media exposure sufficient to establish notability, and I may as well defer to them. Also, though, I've been watching the delete-recreate-delete activity of the last few months, and have personally suggested to various pro-Kennedy people that writing a Sean Kennedy section into the existing article on Rant Radio (the notability of which is established) would be a perfectly acceptable way to fix things. Otherwise, there'll be a new Sean Kennedy article in AfD every month. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbolically, justifiably, amusingly and appropriately.OldMixcoatl 22:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, that's why I refuse to interfere and simply watch it all with a smug grin on my face. The swarm in action, eh. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 22:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit, it's pretty funny to watch. The self-fulfilling prophecy that's trying its damnedest not to fulfil itself.OldMixcoatl 23:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I would certainly have voted recommended thus on the previous two AfDs, and the current state of the article does not reflect what was originally deleted. I question the depth of review applied on the first of this year's AfDs, leading to this speedy (G4) tennis. Also, here's a reference I've not yet seen mentioned bbc h2g2. Nigosh 21:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment I'm not sure that anyone has claimed that the current piece is a reflection of that deleted last month. That said, I agree with Kinu that, if anything, it "asserts even less notability". I must also disagree that the anonymous bbc h2g2 piece in any way supports notabilty. In its own words, bbc h2g2 is a guide "written by visitors to the website - people like you..." As such, I would argue that it fails to meet the verifiability policy, nor does it speak to notability. Let's put it this way, I might write an article on myself and post it at bbc h2g2, then write another article for Wikipedia in which I cite bbc h2g2 in order to assert notabilty. Victoriagirl 00:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But you couldn't travel back in time to do it, now could you? Nigosh 09:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that as an entertainer, he has:

• Has a significant "cult" following.
• Has made a prolific contribution to a field of entertainment.

Nigosh 09:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I must disagree with the comment concerning time travel. It is entirely possible for a person to create a piece for bbc h2g2 and later cite the same. In no way am I suggesting that this has occured. My point is that the anonymous article posted on bbc h2g2 fails to meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy. How are we to create an article without being able to cite verifiable, authoritative sources? As I wrote during the successful AfD nomination last month, this concern speaks to verifiability and, by extension, notability. While I recognize that Sean Kennedy might be have a "cult" following, I must wonder why it is that he has not been the subject of an article in even one of Vancouver's numerous alternative papers. If he has made "a prolific contribution to a field of entertainment", citations should be easy to come by. Victoriagirl 14:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't hold the h2g2 article up as anything other than a previously unmentioned reference; but since it was dated Feb 2005, I do think your hypothetical situation stretches too far. Nigosh 15:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Once again, in no way am I suggesting that the bbc h2g2 article was created in order to support a future Wikipedia article. The hypothetical situation was presented as just one reason why bbc h2g2 postings should not be considered as references or evidence of notability. A needless example, I suppose, as bbc h2g2 fails to meet the verifiability policy. Victoriagirl 16:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any verifiable sources saying he has not been the subject of an article in any one of Vancouver's alternative papers?OldMixcoatl 19:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment OldMixcoatl may remember that I first raised this issue in response to one of his/her comments in the previous AfD discussion. I can report that neither the Canadian Index, nor the British Columbia Index records articles on Kennedy. That said, the burden of evidence does not lie with me. I made mention of Vancouver's alternative press only because it seems like the most likely place to find articles on a significant Vancouver "cult" figure (as has been claimed). Should articles exist in the aforementioned media - or any media, for that matter - I'd welcome the news. As it is, I've only come across one piece, a a short profile from 2000, that has Sean Kennedy as its subject. Victoriagirl 23:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you were to say 'I am unable to find an article in one of Vancouver's alternative papers in which Kennedy is the subject', this is merely a statement of your own progress in researching this issue, and has no bearing as to whether Kennedy is notable. However, if you say 'Kennedy has not been the subject in even one of Vancouver's numerous alternative papers', and use this fact as a claim to Kennedy's lack of notability, then I believe the burden of proof lies with you on this. Of course, the whole logical structure of the place is very fragile (Do the criteria for notability meet the criteria for verifiability? Do all statements of truth need to be verified, including the statement that all statements of truth need to be verified?), but I suppose we should try to keep everything as intact as possible.OldMixcoatl 05:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Fair enough. I'll correct my statement. Kennedy's name is absent as a subject in the Canadian Index and the British Columbia Index. I have yet to find anything to contradict this. There is, of course, always a possibility that article escaped the attention of these publications. It is also possible that a piece appeared in one of the lesser-known papers not covered by either index. I mention the burden of evidence only because this AfD asserts that the subject fails to meet notability guidelines. As the nominator, I don't think it is my role to prove otherwise. That said, I have produced what I consider to be the only verifiable article thus far. I encourage others to uncover more articles. If, as 59.167.21.40 suggests below, Kennedy has a global fanbase, this should not be difficult. Victoriagirl 14:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This count? The problem is that Kennedy is kind of the progenitor of his field, and any newspaper would find it rather difficult to report on him, with the lack of context that this brings. It's difficult to think of concepts developed in the late 20th/early 21st century that haven't been logical steps from or simply copies of concepts from much earlier, but the heavy use of self-irony in rabid, militant, absolutist political commentary is such a concept, in my opinion. OldMixcoatl 17:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Others may disagree, but to this girl a two sentence caption ("Sean Kennedy is one of the longest (possibly the longest) running audio ranter and he knows what he's talking about. Sean Kennedy is the fucking man.") on what appears to be a dormant website created by fellow ranters doesn't speak much to notability. There must be something more out there. I mean, even progenitors get some sort of coverage. Academic journals perhaps? Victoriagirl 20:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm... The stuff he does really isn't the kind of thing you'd find in academic journals... maybe in a few years when he's proven his point. The survivalist culture is currently entertainment rather than a socio-cultural phenomenon. I don't know whether it's been brought up that he did get two 'interviews' from a Christian radio show. He supposedly was asked back due to the response generated from the first. They can be heard here and here. If you listen to the earlier show, the reason he is asked on is due to a version of one of his rants that was put on youtube. Sorry this is taking so much of your time, by the way, I actually enjoy this kind of thing, but I can imagine it could be a little frustrating from your point of view. OldMixcoatl 21:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Sean Kennedy is probably not that popular in Vancouver. His fan base is online and global, kinda like wikipedia. How many articles about wikipedia have been published in its home town? 59.167.21.40 05:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The issue here appears to be notability rather than verifiability; it appears to me that the AfD process has not been adequately followed, as the original (2nd) nomination was proposed without posting a ((notability)) warning, given the longevity and activity of the article. Nigosh 21:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes notability on a number of counts: cult following, original concepts, third party verification and important contribution to field (imho).OldMixcoatl 22:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Rant Media. ¿SFGiДnts! ☺ ☻ 23:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Evading a AfD for Sean Kennedy by reposting as Sean Kennedy (Author), and then as Sean Kennedy (Writer) does not impress me as a straight-forward way to get articles in WP. Did the author think nobody would notice? DGG 02:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a little disingenuous since the main Sean Kennedy article has in the mean time been both the present Sean Kennedy (Hollyoaks) and now a disambig page, (and I would question the value of the whole Hollyoaks cast list being here, despite it being the comitted and sterling work of one dedicated author!) By the way, can you confirm that the author was the same person for both page recreations? Nigosh 09:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF. Sean used to link to his Wikipedia page as a bio, on his livejournal page. Dunno if he still does, but if it happens to be that more than one user has recreated each page, then maybe that speaks to the fact he does have more than one listener. As for the authors not noticing, I think the articles get created by people who have not had extensive enough experience with Wikipedia policies to know about these rules. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 15:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • I created this version of the article, and I was not involved with nor aware of the drama behind the previous versions. As I mentioned above, I was also not aware of the G4 rule. I was listening to last week's episode of NewsReal on RantRadio Talk, mirrored by my ISP (although that only boosts the notability of RantRadio, and only if my ISP has notability...) and heard Sean mention that wikipedia doesn't believe he exists. Remembering how biased and unprofessional his old article sounded when I read it last year (it seemed to be mostly copied from his self-promotion websites), I assumed it was removed because of that. I had no idea that notability was such a touchy issue for some people (the 'criteria for deletion' page even warns not to take it too seriously), and I certainly wouldn't have guessed that previous deletion was grounds for deletion. I can see that you would want to stop the exact same article being re-posted, but that is not the case here.
    Sean Kennedy exists, has a cult following, has more notability than lots of bio stubs on here, and this current article is unbiassed and informative for people seeking to learn more about Sean Kennedy. The next person to vote against keeping this article should just delete it and end the silly debate until another unfortunate NewsReal fan comes along and wonders why Sean isn't on wikipedia. Zerodivision 15:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone can blame me - I'm the guy who let Sean know his article had been deleted in the first AfD. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 18:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment No one has ever questioned Kennedy's existence. The issue at hand in this nomination and the AfD nominations of March and April is notability. Victoriagirl 23:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete And so, I add my vote. Victoriagirl 23:20, 9 May 2007 (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.