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.
Kurykh (
talk) 04:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)reply
This is a coatrack, although now I have removed the coatrack content. This biography was created by a user about to be blocked for two months. The weblinks barely mention the subject - there is no biographical content - it is basically an attack page, attacking someone or other that is not the subject of the biography, a coatrack, awful, wikipedia at its worst.
Govindaharihari (
talk) 19:35, 11 February 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep: now you've edited it, this isn't an attack page anymore. Some other sources related to him that could potentially be used as part of the basis for a section on his views and as evidence for notability:
Salon,
SPLC,
Raw Story,
Washington Spectator (that one republished in
Newsweek). I wouldn't be sad if the article were deleted and don't plan to work on it much myself (not a topic I want to immerse myself in) but I don't yet see a policy reason why it should be deleted.
Mortee (
talk) 21:00, 11 February 2017 (UTC)reply
It is hard to understand , no , it is not really - anyone can edit wikipedia - there is no articles specifically about him, he is only tangentially mentioned - there is no life story (a biography) about him at all.
Govindaharihari (
talk) 22:09, 11 February 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep. While one sentence quotes in a variety of articles probably wouldn't satisfy
WP:BASIC, ironically the
Southern Poverty Law Center seems to be almost showering publicity on the subject, with an
in-depth profile and
2013 magazine article, calling him "the hottest right-wing video blogger this side of former Klansman David Duke", and he could arguably satisfy
WP:ENTERTAINER via "a large fan base or a significant "cult" following."
--Animalparty! (
talk) 05:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)reply
Southern Poverty Law Center is just an opponent of the subject - has no chance of writing a neutral biography about the subject, just a totally biased opponent of the living person.
Govindaharihari (
talk) 20:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete Lots of passing mentions, no in-depth coverage.
AusLondonder (
talk) 08:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)reply
Totally agree. There is no in depth and neutral coverage at all about this living person.
Govindaharihari (
talk) 20:05, 15 February 2017 (UTC)reply
All that is important is - have I got enough decent neutral sources to write a decent life story about a noteworthy living person and if your answer is yes then vote to keep. It is my investigation that that position is not realized by a long way.
Govindaharihari (
talk) 20:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)reply
keep The SPLC profile came at the top of the first page of a search on his name., but it was
User:Animalparty's citation of their magazine profile "The Smiling est Nationalist" that persuaded me (I had though it was sort of BLP:1E / election related. Adding a description of him I found in Politico to the page.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 16:13, 17 February 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Kurykh (
talk) 05:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)reply
Strong keep plenty of
WP:RS. If you can show that most of the
WP:RS of the article does not mention him at all, then I might reconsider. --
David Tornheim (
talk) 05:31, 19 February 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep - Meets
WP:GNG as having indepth coverage in the two SPLC articles linked by Animalparty and plenty of wider media coverage.
Cwmhiraeth (
talk) 11:31, 21 February 2017 (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.