Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. The problem with the "delete" arguments is, by and large, they assert WP:BLP1E without going into any further depth, and several were challenged by the "keep" arguments without follow-up. Therefore, I have to conclude the latter have made the strongest position. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:08, 1 March 2018 (UTC) reply

David Hogg (activist)


David Hogg (activist) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Yet another student survivor of Stoneman Douglas High School shooting speaking up, not distinctly notable per WP:BLP1E. There is also a Wikipedia:Systemic bias issue at hand - Mass fatality events of the same magnitude in Asia and Africa often don't have articles at all or come up for AfD while this is 4th or 5th spin off article from the shooting article (which is not particularly long) from one news-cycle. Icewhiz ( talk) 15:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 15:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 15:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 15:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. NN WP:RECENTISM. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Note – the page David Hogg was moved to David Hogg (US politician) to "make room" for this David Hogg, a controversial and not discussed move. CookieMonster755 ✉ 16:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I'm not so sure about some of the other articles on other survivors but this one is most definitely notable, with the subject being extensively covered in reliable sources [1]. As far as the nom's claim that "systemic bias" applies because we don't have articles on mass murders at schools in Asia and Africa (maybe because they don't happen like they do in US), it's not. Iit's actually a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument which invalidates the rationale put forth by the nom (and frankly, it's a silly argument). Volunteer Marek ( talk) 16:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Stoneman Douglas High School shooting.Keep As with Emma Gonzalez, sources given in the article clearly indicate significant coverage and WP:NTEMP applies. On the other hand, any claims of lasting notability are speculative and WP:CRYSTAL equally applies. At this point in time, however, all we can say is that there is no notability independent of the Stoneman shooting, and the content should be merged there. Since I wrote that, further coverage means that this person has entered the national political debate and independent notability is now established. While some reactions from right-wing politicians indicate a desire to wish these students into the cornfield, we follow the sources and there is clearly significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - This is a textbook example of WP:BLP1E where the subject is notable only because of the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. His role in the shooting does not appear to be substantial, and it is also too early to tell if the coverage is extensive. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 16:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply
    Actually, his role in the shooting is irrelevant. The subject does not meet each (in other words all) of the criteria required for WP:BLP1E to apply.- Mr X 🖋 18:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep with numerous reliable independent references which discuss him in-depth such as here and here and here and here and here. WP:BLP1E does not apply here because there are several angles here: (1) surviving the shooting (2) becoming a gun-control advocate (3) helping to form the group Never Again MSD (4) going to Tallahassee to advocate for gun control to state legislators. The BLP1E says If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event but the school shooting is over -- now Hogg has become a student leader of an activism campaign -- clearly a second event. Hogg is getting consistent national and international attention and easily meets the WP:GNG.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 17:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep – let's examine what is being put on the shelf here. Mainly, WP:GNG and WP:BLP1E. If we take a look at WP:GNG, it states that a topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article when certain conditions apply. This condition includes the following: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content – based on the sources that Tomsulcer provide, the sources in the article and outside sources, there are several articles that discuss this subject in depth. He does meet this criteria for a stand alone article. All sources that are discussing him and his work in depth are reliable. The second thing we must examine is WP:BLP1E. His notability initially came from his status as a survivor of the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, but now includes his work for gun control advocacy after the shooting took place. Now we beg the question, is the shooting and its aftermath a different event from the coverage and discussion regarding 2018 gun control advocacy – though these events are related, are they considered two different events? Well, let's look at BLP1E. It states Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met – the first condition is If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. Does David Hogg, in which articles discuss him, only feature him on the context of a single event? It seems, based on several factors, that the 2018 gun control advocacy and the shooting at MSD are separate events. Reliable sources discuss his role in both of these events, focusing on the latter and his involvement in gun control advocacy. The second criteria is If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Based on reliable sources, it is unlikely that David Hogg will become a low-profile individual based on his work in the 2018 gun advocacy movement following the MSDHS shooting. Based on factoring of these criteria, I support a weak keep. We can always examine notability at a later time. Wikipedia is not in a rush to delete, create or re-create articles if needed. CookieMonster755 ✉ 17:17, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • I'll repeat what I said on the AfD for Gonzalez--"Really a poster child for BLP1E, were it not for her continued involvement in the protests that followed the event. 'Keep, certainly for now, and if this is to be merged the content should not be deleted. BTW, Never Again MSD might be a better target for a merge, unless Mr. Icewhiz wants to nominate that also for deletion." Drmies ( talk) 17:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply
    • Never Again passed an AfD and would be a good merge/redirect target for all these BLP1E student speakers who are not notable for anything besides speaking as part of the organization. Icewhiz ( talk) 19:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Per WP:SIGCOV. WP:BLP1E is not applicable. If the content were to be merged anywhere, I agree with Drmies that Never Again MSD would be the appropriate target.- Mr X 🖋 18:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Merge into Never Again MSD - There's nothing particularly notable about David in particular that warrants him having a separate article from the group as a whole. No other mass shooting has spawned so many spinoff articles for individual people connected to it. WP:SIGCOV certainly seems applicable, but Never Again MSD already exists and can serve as a place to consolidate this article, the one about Emma Gonzalez, etc.- PrimaPrime ( talk) 18:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Nope, he's also notable for being a subject of conspiracy theories, including those "liked" by Donald Trump Jr. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 20:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - this is a textbook example of WP:BLP1E. The aftermath of the shooting is the same event as the shooting. If he still plays a significant role in an important gun-control group in a year's time, he will likely be notable then, but that's WP:CRYSTAL. "Being a subject of conspiracy theories" is an atrocious reason to suggest this person is a public figure or notable. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 23:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply
    • Power~enwiki, you regularly make claims like the one you made above - "textbook example of BLP1E". These comments always leave me shaking my head, and wondering what you think BLP1E says. If Hogg's article is a "textbook example" of BLP1E, it should be trivial for you to explain how it is a "textbook example". It should be trivial for you to include quotes from BLP1E that show it is a "textbook example". Geo Swan ( talk) 21:02, 27 February 2018 (UTC) reply
It's a moot point here, as this is obviously going to be kept. single event - as I say above, the aftermath is a single event. a low-profile individual - considering the person is a minor who was (arguably) forced at gunpoint into the public eye less than two weeks ago, I feel obliged to assume they will remain a low-profile individual. individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented - I refuse to believe that personal attacks by the like of Alex Jones can make his role substantial. I note that the continuing coverage makes a keep more reasonable. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 21:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Comment BLP1E only applies if all three criteria are met, including whether "that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual". Hogg is currently the subject of a cover article in the NYTimes examining the Youtube conspiracy about him. Google News, when searched with the terms ("david hogg" and Stoneman) returns 63,000 results. These are the hallmarks of a high profile individual. BLP1E is clearly NOT met. 104.163.148.25 ( talk) 06:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Hogg is widely covered in relation to the shooting and students speaking up after the shooting. There is nothing to indicate that these students won't fade back to obscurity once this is out of the newscycle. Having doubts expressed on whether you are a real person is if at all a WP:V issue (though it seems these are widely dismissed as a conspiracy theory) - not a sign of WP:N (if at all a contrary sign). Icewhiz ( talk) 07:47, 22 February 2018 (UTC) reply
OK, but what crystal ball are you using to be so sure that "There is nothing to indicate that these students won't fade back to obscurity"? 104.163.148.25 ( talk) 09:56, 22 February 2018 (UTC) reply
The specific policy on bios - WP:ONEEVENT. There is no reason to discuss this individual not in the scope of Stoneman Douglas High School shooting or Never Again MSD. Icewhiz ( talk) 11:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC) reply
The intense media coverage about the subject and other MSD students is not solely about the shooting anymore- it is about gun control in the USA, government inaction and the influence of the NRA. Hogg, like the other students speaking out, has a message which deals with three things: 1. our friends were shot, and we want it not to happen again, 2. gun laws in the USA need to change, and 3. these students, including Hogg, will take an active part in changing the gun laws. That is not a single event or item of interest-- it is multiple items. Witness the large CNN town hall special last night devoted to gun control issues. it was not a memorial to the shooting, it was a discussion of gun control. WP:ONEEVENT and WP:BLP1E do not apply. 104.163.148.25 ( talk) 17:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The situation as it is happening is making him significant. WP:BLP1E doesn't apply if the person is unlikely to return to a low profile, and the presence of conspiracy theories surrounding him makes it likely he is going to continue to be in the spotlight. Either way, there is significant coverage of him outside of surviving a school shooting. Acebulf ( talk) 05:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep WP:BLP1E does not apply. Is likely to remain in the spotlight for a long time, and Impact is clear. Plenty of good relaible sources as well. BabbaQ ( talk) 11:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC) reply
But WP:CRYSTALBALL does not allow us to speculate whether someone is "likely to remain in the spotlight for a long time." Right now, we have to decide based on the subject's current level of notability. In a years' time, if David and Emma have established themselves as reasonably well-known activists who are independently-notable from the existing group ( Never Again MSD), then the articles can be written then. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a news source. Just because someone has a lot of coverage now in primary sources, it doesn't mean they'll have staying power worthy of an encyclopedia, which relies a lot on secondary sources. PrimaPrime ( talk) 15:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC) reply
I seem to remember a debate around an Infowars reporter recently (was it Owen Shroyer?) who has a substantial page on Everipedia but was AfD'd here. Don't think this is a valid reason to keep. Wikizenx ( talk) 13:06, 26 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I don't really understand why so many people want these articles deleted. These students, Hogg in particular, have gained so much notoriety with their activism, they are bound to be remembered. The aftermath, as in the reaction, from this shooting isn't like most mass shootings that have taken place. It's ignited a movement that doesn't seem to be slowing down anytime soon. CloudKade11 ( talk) 09:11, 23 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment it was clearly a big waste of time to nominate this so early. The appropriate time to look at it would have been in a month or two, or six. As it stands the AfD is no concensus, so why doesn't someone close this as such? 104.163.148.25 ( talk) 10:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC) reply
I disagree. With 16 keep !votes it is not going to be deleted. Whether it is closed as keep or no concensus if of little concern. the fact it is a clear keep (but might not be in a few months, which would be the appropriate time to AFD) makes this discussion a waste of time. 104.163.148.25 ( talk) 23:21, 23 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • STRONG KEEP, AND DON'T MOVE. He is notable, not for going to that high school, but for founding a long-needed anti schooting group. Several newspapers have articles specifically about him and how he's being harassed by right-wing goons-- one is in today's Washington Post. His pic is in TWO separate articles today. Verdana♥Bold 11:39, 23 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verdana Bold ( talk • contribs)

Why did sine bot say I didn't sign this? I used 4 tildies like this: Verdana♥Bold 11:48, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@ Verdana Bold: can we please refrain from unrelated political judgements (right-wing goons, long-needed anti schooting group)? Our job here is to decide if he is notable enough for an article. Thanks. — cnzx ( talk • contribs) 05:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - With the sourcing available, and things like full page stories specifically dedicated to the subject continuing to pop up in places like WaPo, it's pretty hard to argue that there isn't enough available to write a neutral and well sourced article, which is the central question behind the spirit of notability. Also... for whatever it's worth, SYSTEMICBIAS is not a rationale for deleting coverage of Western topics; it's a rationale for increasing coverage of non-Western ones. Using it in this way is a little bit like saying we should combat housing discrimination in the US by foreclosing on as many middle class white families as possible, which obviously misses the point of why housing discrimination is a problem to begin with. GMG talk 12:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep meets WP:SIGCOV per WP:HEY. Hogg's actions in the last week and the resulting publicity and reporting support, in my opinion, that this is not WP:BLP1E. Thsmi002 ( talk) 12:34, 23 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Subject is involved in enough controversies and incidents to render him cross-referentially notable. Williamsdoritios ( talk) 13:13, 23 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: This is a matter of historical importance (see: the number of companies that have stopped supporting the NRA due to his, and the other activists', efforts). I would say he is relevant enough. ( LahmacunKebab ( talk) 23:27, 23 February 2018 (UTC)) reply
  • Delete or Merge - WP:BLP1E. Many other survivors of school shootings who have had substantial coverage at the time do not have their own pages. Bias towards one view, not notable in his own right. 62.31.81.43 ( talk) 23:44, 23 February 2018 (UTC) — 62.31.81.43 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Yep, new static IP address. 62.31.81.43 ( talk) 00:24, 24 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Do you know what your previous IP address was? It would certainly alleviate any SPA impropriety claims that could be brought forth. Acebulf ( talk) 00:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC) reply
He must mean dynamic IP, as static IPs don't change (often). 104.163.148.25 ( talk) 04:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC) reply
I was on the 85.211.* subnet - last one I can see is 85.211.232.136. In retrospect, would be good to merge to a page for all survivors, then should he become notable for any other reason in the future, maybe look at an individual article. 62.31.81.43 ( talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.81.43 ( talk) 15:38, 25 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep: Excellent points made by others in favor of keeping. The points convincingly counter the arguments made by those in favor of deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronpoley ( talk • contribs) 06:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC) reply

This is employing WP:CRYSTAL we don't know if he's likely to be notable in the future or not 13:06, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
I said he is already notable. His likely future additional notability is just a perk. All Hallow's Wraith ( talk) 13:26, 26 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Seriously? All this news coverage is only one event? Not.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 15:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Yes seriously. I was quite clear: "if you subtract anything stemming from the fact that he happened to be present at the shooting, you are left with absolutely nothing.". Everything stems from one event. Niteshift36 ( talk) 17:24, 26 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Yes. I think the important thing is there's nothing that makes him stand out in any way individually from the others also involved in the movement. Wikizenx ( talk) 15:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Yup. Survived shooting. Spoke up. Conspiracy theory about him being a crises actor, some more interviews. So you saw him all week in the media - and there is no particular reason why would continue to be featured. Icewhiz ( talk) 15:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Nonsense. He's (1) a survivor (2) a leader/organizer of Never Again MSD (3) accused of being a "crisis actor" (4) numerous appearances on TV with Anderson Cooper etc (5) calling for a boycott of NRA-associated firms (which appears to be working) (6) calling for a boycott of spring break Florida tourism. All this is BLP1E? Hogwash.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 15:55, 26 February 2018 (UTC) reply
It's only been 12 days since the shooting. Everything that he's done so far has been related to the one event / cause which is adequately covered in the Wiki page that is dedicated to that cause. [redacted] Wikizenx ( talk) 16:47, 26 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Great -- [redacted] -- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 17:01, 26 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • WP:BLP1E does not apply, because criteria 2 and 3 are not met. In addition, the subject is not a LOWPROFILE person. Even yesterday, he appeared in an interview with Jake Tapper, chatting with Dan Rather. He is already notable. If news coverage declines, he will still be notable as explained in WP:NOTTEMPORARY. By the way, his notability is not about his role in the shooting; it's about his role as a co-leader of a nationwide movement that has garnered international attention, and the vile attacks by the far-right, including conspiracy theories and death threats. - Mr X 🖋 17:38, 26 February 2018 (UTC) reply
— 216.15.17.192 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.163.148.25 ( talk) 07:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Definitely one of the more well known of the survivors of the shooting. He is notable beyond the shooting since he has had conspiracy theories levied against him, and he is a leader of the #NeverAgain movement. He and Emma Gonzalez are definitely some of the more notable names and I believe they deserve to have their own pages. Cssiitcic ( talk) 01:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with others Hogg does have more notability than his compatriots with the exception of Emma Gonzalez, but are we really to believe that they will all be notable beyond this news cycle? Simply guessing at this time is pointless. We don't know where they will be 3 months from now, with all of them heading off to college soon its likely we won't hear from them again. Most of the information in their biographies pertains to the event and the shooting details/aftermath. Merging would be the best way to preserve this information in case they branch off in the future and regain more notoriety outside of victim status and media appearances. If we don't apply the same standards to all the victims who spoke out then we will be left with repetitive biographies shaped by a singular event. 100.33.114.169 ( talk) 02:52, 27 February 2018 (UTC) reply
— 2601:586:4201:37DD:A448:6326:C00A:6F5C ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.163.148.25 ( talk) 03:32, 28 February 2018 (UTC) reply
I do not think there is a "without prejudice" rationale for closing an AfD. See WP:CLOSEAFD. Relevant ones seem to be no consensus, keep, delete, merge, draftify, speedy delete etc. Away, "without prejudice" is pretty much the same as no consensus. 104.163.148.25 ( talk) 20:54, 28 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Hogg has backed out of this debate. 62.31.81.43 ( talk) 04:16, 1 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep There's a degree of WP:CRYSTAL in arguing that coverage will go on into the future but I'm more inclined to believe that it well continue based on the CNN interview he did with Dan Rather. We can always revisit if that doesn't happen. LM2000 ( talk) 07:59, 1 March 2018 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/David_Hogg&oldid=1068881899"

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE