Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cork Graham

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 keep. MBisanz ^talk 07:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cork Graham

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

While this article is well made and appears to adhere to the guidelines for a proper article, it is full of fabrications, exaggerations, and plainly was written in bombastic fashion by Cork Graham himself.

The citations are also non-sensical, referencing the authors own work to reinforce his ridiculous claims and citing the various irrelevant details to add a false sense of respectability and relevance. When the work's of Cork Graham aren't being cited to lend credibility to the deeds of Cork Graham, the author uses completely nonsensical and false references to works outside the spectrum. For reference, please see citation [16] pertaining to the ransom requested for Graham. Astonishingly enough, LatinoReview.com's review of the movie "National Treasure" contains absolutely no reference to these amounts, nor does it constitute an objective source!

The entire article takes great pains to avoid the most glaring issues like "Why should anyone care about this person at all?". How is he relevant to world history? I feel that I have an obligation to future generations that they might stumble across this man's article at some point in the future and be deceived into believing that he somehow played any larger a role in world history than your average Joe

As stated in the deletion guidelines: Notability requires objective evidence

"The common theme in the notability guidelines is the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability. Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence, as do published peer recognition and the other factors listed in the subject specific guidelines. Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability. The Wikimedia project Wikinews covers topics of present news coverage."

The claim that the author's book was an "international bestseller" take great liberties with that concept. His claims to be a polyglot are also subject to question. Neither of these qualifications are notable enough to justify an entire WIkipedia article. the largest problem is that his single claim to notability is his imprisonment in Vietnam for what was essentially self-employed espionage, or to put it another way, trespassing. How is this in any way important? Expatriates are imprisoned for more significant and interesting reasons than this man was.

When all of this is taken into account, this article certainly deserves immediate deletion as it undermines the integrity of WIkipedia as a source or relevant accurate information and relegates it to the status of "Shameless Myspace Clone". The fact that this article is allowed to exist at all is a blemish on the entire Wikimedia Foundation and surely represents another round of ammunition in the belts of all those who (rightfully?) claim that Wikipedia is not worth being taken seriously.

I further recommend that the original author and person responsible for the lionsshare of reversions and revisions be blocked from making significant changes to this article or from restoring it in the future. — 76.232.217.44 (talk) 05:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC) Text copied from article talk page. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ dedicated to making a happy man very old 10:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redvers you didn't mark the original section you cut and pasted by 76.232.217.44 with "has made few or no other edits outside this topic." Yet, a review of 76.232.217.44's comments and edits are paltry and "has made few or no other edits outside this topic." Is there a reason for this? Wikicops (talk) 09:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

S/he has made more edits elsewere than you and most of your other sockpuppets. You have tagged the nominator as a SPA whilst removing the same tags from your socks. I have suggested you stop. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ dedicated to making a happy man very old 09:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting reading the usertalk 76.232.217.44 for March 2008: "Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Cork Graham. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Channel ® 00:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)." I guess you knew better than the admin when you decided to cut and paste this from the discussion page. Wikicops (talk) 09:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be trying to score points off me, but are missing some fundamental points to how Wikipedia works (and the fact that Channel R is not an admin but I am). ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ dedicated to making a happy man very old 09:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Great arguments for editing with a lot of blue pencil, not so great for deletion. "Bamboo Chest" is 167K on Amazon list. Once the puff is excised, then see if he fails notability. Collect (talk) 12:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Number of Amazon 4 and 5 star reviews pertaining to the time noted as bestseller ranking, year 2004, very likely, though "Bamboo Chest" is now @ 227K on Amazon. Also from review of deletion requester's record IP 76.232.217.44 of slander in articles going back to March 2008, evident this is another ploy by User:76.232.217.44 to slander articles subject. Evidently one of the English teachers in Korea mentioned in article discussion section bored with their lot and still unable to do more than spend evenings on Wikipedia writing diatribes and misleading readers. Evidently this subject and events warranted global attention based on front page article by San Francisco Chronicle. 19:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.158.140 (talk • contribs)
Both the nominator 76.232.217.44 (talk · contribs) and the above 76.235.158.140 (talk · contribs) are on the same ISP, albeit from different pools. I hope this isn't one user playing Wikipedia off against themselves (not unheard of at AfD). ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ dedicated to making a happy man very old 20:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment Reader reviews and publisher reviews on amazon are totally and completely worthless in proving anything at all,regardless of how many stars they have. They are essentially of the same irrelevance as postings on any social bookmarking site. DGG (talk) 01:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I appear to be the only one on this list who has actually done more research on this story outside of slinging comments back and forth. First, I purchased and read The Bamboo Chest in 2004 as a result of finding it on the Topseller page of Amazon. Was it number two at the time? I can't recall, but when I purchase a book at amazon based on best seller listings, I frequently purchase only from the first page. Was it good? Brilliant! It was well-told and well-researched with a number of footnotes and Associated Press photos. It's in my library with other books on the Kidd treasure mystery. My views may be slanted as I'm already a treasure hunting enthusiast. Does the case merit mention in Wiki? Most surely! It's a contemporary telling of the history of a hunt for Captain Kidd's treasure reaching back to 1600s and the Money Pit Mystery. The manner in which the case also effected and was also effected by international relations and lack thereof, between the US, Vietnam, and UK during the 1980s is historically worth recording in this venue. On another note, I also seem to be the only one on this list doing more than just following the few and insignificant reference links from wiki. A search on google and yahoo reveals much more not noted in wiki, for example Mr. Graham's record at the International Combat Photographer's Assoc. A review of the membership policies shows the stringent membership policies. Also reviewing Mr. Graham's combat photography portfolio it's easy to see why they accepted him into membership. If you start removing Mr. Graham's article will you also be removing Sean Flynn, Tim Page and John Everingham's articles? They have much less referencing and verification. Finally, there is the matter of the identity and commenting and editing record of DELETION NOMINATOR USER: 76.232.217.44

I am most concerned with these found by clicking on the 76.232.217.44 link:

01:17, 29 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Cork Graham ‎ (→Film and television)
23:46, 28 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Cork Graham ‎ (→Post-war) .

Whether USER 76.232.217.44 has a personal and child-like grudge against Mr. Graham is something I don't know. As a litigator I'm well aware that the comments made nearly a year ago are slanderous, were immediately undone by a mediator, and are an just indication of what may be the real reasons for an attempt to have this article deleted. Not a self-purported honourable endeavour to keep wiki unblemished. USER 76.232.217.44 appears more a disgruntled wikipedia hack. BlkBeard (talk) 06:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC) comment added by BlkBeard (talk • contribs) 17:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)— BlkBeard (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

We're not going to ban someone for suggesting an article is deleted and asking for that to happen undermines your case. Comment on the content, not the contributor, please. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ dedicated to making a happy man very old 21:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. Some of these are in-depth, others are not. However, taken together, I think they confirm notability. Of course the article needs a major rewrite. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 04:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What happened to the sections on Graham's combat photojournalism in Central America and after? Is there a new slash and burn policy on article sections? There were a number of reference links that are now gone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ST4phile (talk • contribs) 07:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC) — ST4phile (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
DELETE This is why there are professionals who do this and get paid to do the research instead of play armchair journalists. REMOVE THE ARTICLE. Evident it's just a synopsis of the author's book and has no real reasearch or interviews to back up the information. What a waste reading and writing time to debate. Any wonder Wikipedia is laughed at? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.103.223 (talk) 17:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per N Shar above. However, I agree that the article needs to be seriously rewritten, and some of those references need to be added to make a clearer demonstration of notability. Terraxos (talk) 02:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most humbl thanks to 76.232.217.44 and REDVERS for bringing useles articl to atention. Sinc pointles article on Graham and Kidd tresure incident will be deleted, itnot best remove March 2008 admin block and comments on 76.232.217.44's contribution record on 76.232.217.44's vandalism this article? Many others don't understand purpose of wiki be tempted to think just another attempt by sockpuppets with personal dislike of articles subject and and those who think article of worth? Congratulatins 76.232.217.44 for initiating discussion and REDVERS for making hole seperete delet section on it. Please keep intigrity of wiki and keep up excellent vangard and delete this article!!! 76.254.79.97 (talk) 18:37, 30 January 2009 (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.