Talk:Johnny Joo

• Comment This article might not even qualify as a snub. It should be either considered deleted outright or merged or turned into a snub. Many people editing the article even say in editing comments that they are fans or friends of Joo's work. I've seen links on Freelancer to have this article created by someone for money. Either someone close to the subject or the subject himself. Several items listed as references don't even mention Johnny Joo at all in the sources. Cantonrubbernecks (talk) 19:44, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion comment

The following was posted on the article page today by Cantonrubbernecks, so I've put it here instead:

{{subst:Proposed deletion|concern=Conflict of interest from several people that say the article was paid for by the subject or someone close to him, many of the sources removed were unverified independent sources, and since there's hardly any news coverage outside of local news outlets near the subject this might not qualify as the subject being notable, and perhaps a snub or merge with some urban exploring related page may be an option, unless the community can add enough verified sources the article should be deleted. The subject himself uses Catersnews and Barcroft Media (listed on both the images themselves and respective websites as a client) Not sure these qualify as verified sources since they're bought and paid for by the subject and no owned by the company themselves. If the press agencies had a wikipedia page I would suggest merging but they do not. Attention Administrator Lastly, as I noted on the talk page the page itself is now being edited by 'friends and people close to Johnny Joo per comments in recent edits.

Meticulo (talk) 23:11, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Meticulo the article reads as a snub at this point. Would you recommend it becomes a snub or merged with another page there is just not enough for a wikipedia page on this subject Cantonrubbernecks (talk) 04:57, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I voted to keep the article because his work appears to have been published in multiple newspapers, magazines and news websites, as shown by links in the deletion discussion, in particular the New York Post, New York Daily News and the Mirror. That's enough in my opinion to establish significant coverage. Meticulo (talk) 15:45, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• Stubs are allowed, and WP:IMPERFECT is policy. Rather than trying to figure out ways to get rid of an article that has very recently passed review at Articles for Creation and survived with a keep consensus at Articles for Deletion, consider working to improve the article instead. Bakazaka (talk) 05:24, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

• The problem with the AFD was that it never was discussed long enough to reach any consensus based on the fact that editors saw it on freelancer to both be created and deleted. I believe it was done deliberately to get the article a keep consensus by withdrawing the AFD by the person that nominated it for deletion changed his vote after admitting taking the job on Freelancer. Therefore, it was never fully listed as an AFD. That process was rudely interrupted by paid editing and only was listed for three days Cantonrubbernecks (talk) 05:56, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

It's true that the nominator was able to withdraw the nomination because the single delete !vote changed. It is also true that at least three experienced editors, including the editor who approved the draft at AfC, !voted to keep before the nomination was withdrawn. The closer is a highly experienced admin who was well aware of the issues involved and is perfectly capable of weighing the contributions from new accounts apparently created to participate in the AfD (including, I note, your own account). So, instead of dwelling on the outcome, consider improving the article, or maybe find a less frustrating way to contribute to the project. Bakazaka (talk) 06:24, 8 February 2019 (UTC)