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. Bishonen | talk 23:55, 19 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Tres Watson

Tres Watson (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Initiated by a sockmaster with multiple repeat edits by socks who are part of a nest of socks that appear to be paid advocacy editors (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brilbluterin). Claim of notability appears to be premised on the groups he is involved with. Page creator, a proven sockmaster, is not being notified. Risker ( talk) 05:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• keep Independently reviewed and sources confirmed after community discussions. The article should be judged on its current accuracy and encyclopaedic value. -- Fæ ( talk) 05:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Interesting interpretation of the last AFD, which closed as "no consensus"; all of the references were disputed at that time. (I don't dispute that close, it was appropriate to the discussion.) I came to this article because of an SPI. We're now up to at minimum 4 blocked socks (including one who was community banned independent of the current SPI). Neither of the organizations he's associated with have been deemed notable by editors of this encyclopedia, both of their articles were considered essentially advertising, and they're the basis on which notability is claimed for this article's subject. Risker ( talk) 07:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply

My view has nothing to do with the last AFD, hence no mention of it in my viewpoint. If you must lobby this AFD after creating it, please stick to verifiable facts rather than what you think you see. -- Fæ ( talk) 11:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply

What exactly does your !vote say? Reads meaningless to me. Independently reviewed by who? "confirmed" by who? duffbeerforme ( talk) 12:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply

See the links at the top of the page. I'm happy to answer questions if they are in a collegiate tone. Thanks. -- Fæ ( talk) 13:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Then please reread Duff's questions with a collegiate, AGF-ing tone in your mind and give them an answer, because so far no one seems to understand what you're saying. Thanks. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 18:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply

At the top of the page are links to the article history and the article talk page. Edits since the last AfD have made significant improvements to trimming out irrelevant sources and moving to a neutral point of view in the text, see diff. Sorry, found the last AfD highly adversarial and this just seems similarly aggressive. I've probably just forgotten what is normal for AfDs as I've grown used to what happens in the smaller Commons community. -- Fæ ( talk) 19:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply

And yet, the article still has unsourced statements, statements that do not match the sources, and boastful statements with a first-party source. The cleaning is not complete - and the cleaner it is made, the more visible it is that there is not much there. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 19:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete: The sources about Canvass for a Cause generally just mention him as a spokesman, and the group itself was deemed insufficient for an article in a prior AfD. The material about Gadget Guys is sourced either to a local weekly (and thus of limited impact), to a database, or to his alma mater (and thus connected.) -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 06:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Coverage is about Canvass, not him and outside the local/alma mater interest is focused on one single new event, the lawsuit. See last afd for an analysis of sourcing to see why it's not good enough. duffbeerforme ( talk) 12:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete a non-notable activist who has not recieved wide spread coverage in reliable 3rd party sources at a level to pass GNG. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep; founder of two non-profit organizations, received some coverage on a national level, more coverage on a regional level, mentioning him by name, over a period of 8 5 years, by reliable 3rd party sources CBS, The San Diego Union-Tribune, San Diego Gay and Lesbian News, LGBT Weekly. Additional sources that may not be independent do not diminish those. The article still being worked on is no grounds for deletion, more to the contrary. Unsourced statements in an article are no grounds for deletion of the whole. The last RfD had no consensus, but a solid 5:2 majority to keep; none of the five editors who wanted to keep the article have a connection to the above mentioned sock puppetry, so I'm not sure why there even is a 2nd nomination, there appear to be no new arguments; to the contrary, the article has been improved since then. -- Seelefant ( talk) 04:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Comment: The sources you listed are reliable but that's not enough to establish notability per WP:GNG. The sources also need to be independent of the subject and the coverage needs to be significant - "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention."

• CBS - Article about Target lawsuit contains a media file interview of subject. Interviews are generally considered primary sources, regardless of where they are published.
• The San Diego Union-Tribune. - Trivial mention of subject in article about Canvass for a Cause being sued by Target. It's interesting that the article in the local paper starts off stating "A small, largely unknown group of same-sex marriage activists from San Diego has been sued by one of the world’s biggest retailers ..."
• San Diego Gay and Lesbian News - Article is about Canvass For A Cause - one line mention of subject
• LGBT Weekly - Article is about The Gadget Guys Foundation. Article is primarily interviews with people associated with the foundation.

Unfortunately, none of these sources are sufficient to establish notability. CBS527 ^Talk 02:06, 11 March 2017 (UTC) reply

• keep There is enough RS about him as an individual, and the issues raised here seem to mirror the previous delete discussion with nothing new to warrant delete. Listed as the founder of two non-profits which have garnered coverage each individually, which is different than a passing mention as a spokesperson for an organization. He is listed in the IRS 990 of Canvass for a Cause as the principle, and looking at the Canvass for a Cause delete it was a speedy delete, without debate so that seems less deterministic than an actual debate.-- Atreau Atreau ( talk) 21:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep I'm not convinced by the argument that the article is only about his organisations, not himself. That's what he's done, that's why he's notable. Spicemix ( talk) 22:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete - not nearly enough in-depth coverage about him to show that he meets WP:GNG. Most are simple mentions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:49, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
• keep Independently reviewed and sources confirmed after community discussions. So no reason to trie to delet it again. FFA P-16 ( talk) 05:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Founder of two notable organizations might imply notability ;founder oftwo non-notable organizations does not, and that's the case here. It's just possible that Canvass for a Cause might be notable, so an article could possibly be written on i (the previous article was rightfully deleted as highly promotional). The previous afd was not a keep, but a non-consensus, which indicates nothing about notability. DGG ( talk ) 20:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep The weight of the RS are clearly enough to keep, I've never created a non-profit let alone one covered by national press. If he created and perpetuated all this work it qualifies, notability is clear here and I think the fact the article is under construction should not count against it. Healinsurance1 ( talk) 16:35, 2 March 2017 (UTC) — Healinsurance1 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

Also after relist, still for Keep( striking duplicate keep !vote. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)), Independently reviewed and sources confirmed after community discussions. So no reason to trie to delet it again. FFA P-16 ( talk) 06:42, 3 March 2017 (UTC) Note to closer: This is the second !vote by this user - see above. reply

• Delete - fails basic WP:GNG as subject has not received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Article has been "referenced" with sources that do not meet all 3 requirements. Two are interviews of the subject which, of course, are not independent, one he isn't mentioned in and rest are short mentions of the subject with nothing of substance. Notability is not inherited since notability requires verifiable evidence and is not conferred by association. G-searches, HighBeam and NYTimes are producing no helpful sources either. CBS527 ^Talk 21:40, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:10, 4 March 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Fails WP:GNG as subject has not received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", only mentions as spokesman of the non-notable organisations listed which do not have their own articles. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 12:31, 12 March 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete per CBS527 and per Cwmhiraeth. No evidence at all that Tres Watson has received anything like the sort of independent coverage needed to get anywhere close to passing WP:BIO. Narky Blert ( talk) 01:18, 19 March 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete, and this is no statement on the worthiness or effectiveness of their cause. Coverage of organisations that Watson is involved with is not necessarily coverage of Watson himself, and the sources do not establish notability for Watson as explained by User:Cbs527 above. Red herring arguments over "community discussions" (where) and from SPIs should be weighted appropriately by the closing admin. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 04:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC). reply
• Delete. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Doesn't pass WP:BIO. Mackensen (talk) 13:20, 19 March 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.