Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Elgin

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. MBisanz ^talk 00:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Paul Elgin

Paul Elgin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

A previous version of this page was speedily deleted at least 4 times. The rewrite is less obviously promotional, but there is still no notability. Some celebrities may have worn these clothes by Paul Elgin, but I don't see awards or industry recognition. There is also a big WP:COI as the User:Htentceo is behind [[1]], which is associated with the clothing line. Clubmarx (talk) 01:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I have had this page reviewed by another Wikipedia moderator, and was given the ok, provided we provided sources and references, and remove suggestive advertising. Wikipedia's policy does not require an individual to be POPULAR in order for an article to be written; they require NOTABILITY, which was provided within the article, with references / cross references. There is no direct correlation between us and Mr. Paul Elgin. Authors do reserve the right to create a username of their choosing, as long as any article they contribute does not show bias or support. This article about Mr. Paul Elgin is completely unbiased, factual, and verifyable. We feel that it is unfair for one or a group of individuals to determine a person or company's value, accomplishments, influence, or recognition soley based on that group or individual's independent knowledge of the person of subject within the article; it should be based on facts. If the content of the article is supported by references, we believe the article should qualify. Whether or not Mr. Elgin has received any awards or A-list recognition should not have a bearing on whether or not the things his companies have accomplished are factual, unbiased, and supported. Please consider this article for inclusion, as we see that it fits all of Wikipedia's authoring guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Htentceo (talk • contribs) 02:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
• Delete and salt. Article fails to meet basic requirement of WP:N, which is significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. A low level credit in a video game, a bunch of myspace pages with obvious COI, and a link to the subject's own website don't qualify. RayAYang (talk) 05:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
• Note that the first keep comment is from the article creator. --Clubmarx (talk) 05:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• Keep And so is the third...

Here are a list of INDEPENDENT references. Its funny how people will try to discredit an individual's accomplishments and / or notability based on lack of knowledge on the subject. The "low level" credit in a game sold world wide for Playstation to me seems to be an oxymoron. We fail to see the COI in the myspace references, but even with those excluded, there are far more references provided. Please review below:

There is an article on Paul Elgin's company, Catch 22 Clothing, on the World Westside Magazine's website, [2].

There is also credits given to Catch 22 Clothing within the Traxxpad game for the Sony Playstation game console, on MobyGames.com [3].

Catch 22 Clothing had a full 2 page advertisement in worldwide circulated Don Diva magazine, September, 2007 issue, pg 55.

2 music videos, Mistah F.A.B.'S "Ghost Ride the Whip" video, and Haji Springer's "Haji's Back" video, both aired nationally on MTV2, show Catch 22 Clothing's eyewear product being either worn by the artist themselves or showcased in the video.

Mr. Elgin also has a profile on IMDB.COM [4]. His IMDB StarMETER, which directly indicates a celebrity's popularity amongst IMDB users, is up 311% since the week of October 5th, 2008.

A google search of Paul Elgin corroborates all of these references. Nothing special is needed to search for Mr. Elgin in the google search bar; just "Paul Elgin". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Htentceo (talk • contribs) 05:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete unless multiple reliable indepedent sources can be found, that provide significant coverage of him. Some of the sources used in the article are from the company myspace or homepage (so not independent). Mobygames just confirms he received a minor credit for a computer game - being associated with a successful game doesn't indicate notability (WP: INHERITED) The other reference in the article is IMDB, but the content is either from "Anonymous" or from an unnamed third party, so may not be independent, and there is no evidence of reliability. Just having an IMDB profile does not indicate notability, as it seems pretty much anyone with some film or other credits can have one. In this case he doesn't even have any credits.

As for the other references mentioned here. The "World Westside Magazine" article might qualify as significant coverage, but as an interview may not be independent, especially as it is next to what look like adverts, and multiple sources (independent, reliable, providing significant coverage, etc) are generally needed. An advert is not independent, and his clothes appearing in music videos does not indicate notability, although a newspaper article about that might. Again, an IMDB profile is not really evidence of notability, and a StarMETER rating isn't really either, as it could be manipulated (or distorted by people here visiting the site), and there is no indication of what the previous rating was, or what it means (see WP:BIG). Silverfish (talk) 11:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Silverfish, we think you bring up some legitimate points in reference to Wikipedia definitions of Notability. We believe you may have a point as it pertains to the IMDB credits (although it would take manipulated hits in the hundreds of thousands to truly effect starMETER), as well as Traxxpad, because of the INHERITED definition.

However, the World Westside Magazine article we believe would qualify because of the fact that the magazine itself is independent, and a lot of their articles are interview-based. It is customary with any article that you would have photos included; whether it be a press interview or an article written by an independent columnist. I believe you also mentioned MULTIPLE sources, so on that point we could look for more references.

We also have the conceptual design work Mr. Elgin has performed, for actress Zoe Saldana, which is referenced on her official website zoesaldana.com, and her myspace page, myspace.com/thesaldanaexperience. Mr. Elgin's contributions extend beyond his ownership of Catch 22 Clothing, as he also introduces the Paul Elgin Franchise aspect as well, which is the medium in which he performs these design tasks for notable clientel, who also acknowledge his work.

Also, to note a few things within the Wikipedia NOTABILITY definitions:

Creative professionals

Scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals:

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

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

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

The person's work 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, or had works in many significant libraries.

Catch 22 Clothing was the first company to officially trademark the slang term "Stunna Shades", and the mark is jointly owned by Catch 22 Clothing's parent company, New World Entertainment Group, Inc, and Mr. Elgin himself. Why is this significant? It allowed Catch 22 Clothing to brand eyewear with the term enscribed on them, thus setting a trend with "the official stunna shades" product, which was a HUGE influence during the Hyphy Movement Culture in the San Francisco Bay Area.Htentceo (talk) 17:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• delete Lets show some common sense: this is one of the few times I have seen an article asserted to be notable on the basis that the person's company had placed advertisements. At most, the sources would support an article on the company, if the eyeglass material is actually real. As his connection with the eyeglasses, that an executive's name appears on the trademark application for a brand does not show his actual own creativity--and after all, the brand still has to be shown notable. It doesn't get so by placing ads and product placements. This isn't even reprinted PR, just downright self-advertising. DGG (talk) 00:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• STRONG Keep "If the eyeglass material is actually real?" DGG must be confused, because "common sense" would tell him that if he were to actually look at the video, photos of Mr. Elgin, and referenced websites, he would see that the eyewear product actually does exist. I'm sorry, that was just a outright lame comment.

Secondly, product placement is not the basis of our arguement for qualification; the product placement is a by-product of the demand for the product. We are basing our point on the verifiable contributions Mr. Elgin and his company have made and should be noted for. We should break it down this way:

1.Catch 22 Clothing
2.Stunna Shades
3.Influence on Hyphy Movement
4.conceptual design work for actress Zoe Saldana

These in a quick summary are the contributions we deem to be notable. Lets address ALL of these when considering this article for inclusion, not just one particular area which is easiest to disqualify.

Also, we notice a certain undertone of hatred and / or anger toward us trying to contribute a wikipedia article. I know that a lot of you are used to people attempting to use Wikipedia for self advertising purposes, but we are not one of them. And of course, with all due respect, WP is definitely NOT the place to go for advertising / promoting, as I don't see how that would help any individual or company. It's not as if you can "sell product" on here or anything to the like. There are MUCH larger and more appropriate mediums for that, so lets really use some common sense here. If we are going to have a discussion about the qualification of this article under WP's definitions, let's do that. But the condescending, degrading sarcasm to me is uneccessary.

The references have been provided; its just the interpretation of the WP definitions on NOTABILITY that are in question. Let's keep it that way please.Htentceo (talk) 01:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Note: did a strikethrough on Htentceo's comment above me as this person has already voted. (see first comment.)--Clubmarx (talk) 02:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Htentceo I've considered the additional comments you've made, but I'm still not convinced he is notable. Doing design work for Zoe Saldana doesn't indicate notability IMO, unless reliable sources discuss the work at some length. Similarly for his role in Catch 22 clothing. As for the Stunna Shades I can confirm a trademark was granted (for a logo, not for shades themselves), but no sources (independent, reliable sources) have been provided that confirm he actually designed the shades, or that the shades themselves are notable, and we would need both, in my interpretation of the guidelines, to qualify under "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique" criterion.

What will help a claim for notability most, is to provide independent, reliable sources, that provide significant coverage of him. The magazine article is a step towards that, but not enough on its own. Silverfish (talk) 13:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - there simply isn't coverage in reliable sources that establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 21:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - It may be true that this guy wasn't a pioneer of the Hyphy Movement in the Bay Area, however he and his company were definitely at the fore-front of it. When the popular glasses took off Catch 22 was in numerous stores throughout the Bay Area. Its probably safe to say that his Notability may not have extended nationally but definitely in the Northern California San Francisco Bay Area there was an impact by this guy. From Rappers to Urban Clothing Models, club owners, and the likes they know Paul Elgin. That shouldn't be discredited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FinFan88 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC) — FinFan88 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keeper The WWS mag article / interview displays notability by itself. The product placement and the web design work is incidental, but the print media coverage and the "Catch 22" effect on bay area fashion are common knowledge. Under Per Wiki guidelines, WWS magazine is a reliable source. Greyskies007 (talk) 22:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC) — Greyskies007 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Note that the last two users who voted to keep have few, if any wikipedia edits. --Clubmarx (talk) 23:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• Holy single purpose sock puppets. Er, I mean, DELETE and WP:SALT per nom. JBsupreme (talk) 23:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Note Beyond his borderline personal attack with sarcasm, the last user that voted DELETE did not substantiate his vote or opinion, as required by WP:JUSTAPOLICY . Also, please note, per WP:SPA, in response to Clubmarx:

While a new user without an edit history who immediately performs tasks that seemingly requires a post-beginner level of editing skills (such as editing non-mainspace pages, uploading images, or participating in a discussion) may be an illegitimate sock puppet, it remains possible that a new user’s contributions are alternatively the product of a disinterested third party wishing to improve the Wikipedia project, or a new user with previous IP editing experience. For these two reasons, statements regarding motives are not recommended without an examination of the user's edit history. The term should be used descriptively and should not be read pejoratively unless a disruptive agenda is clearly established. Users should be informed of relevant policies and content guidelines in a civil and courteous manner, especially if a tag will be applied to their comment.
New users acting in good-faith often will begin to edit topics in which they have a general interest. Such accounts warrant particularly gentle scrutiny before accusing them of any breach of official policies and content guidelines. Specifically, some new users may be unaware that editing a single topic, and in the process adding their own views, may lead to some editors giving less weight to their ideas in article discussions. Some experienced Wikipedia users may be active on a range of articles, and aim to expand the encyclopedia as a whole. Proponents of this aspect of Wikipedia culture expect new users to develop a broader interest.

Htentceo (talk) 00:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Sources are questionable at best, raising serious questions of COI. And without the questionable sources (myspace and subject's own website), there is nothing to show why this person is notable.--Terrillja (talk) 00:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

• Note - Reply to Terrillja - There were more references provided other than Paul Elgin's website and myspace page. There were the World Westside Magazine article, the Imdb.com profile, magazine article in Don Diva Magazine, September Issue, pg 55, and credits given on Zoe Saldana's website for graphic design, and mobygames.com for Traxxpad.Htentceo (talk) 00:51, 18 October 2008 (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.