Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmen Trotta

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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carmen Trotta[edit]

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

Honestly I don't see how he meets WP:BIO, all the sources I seen were passing mentions that doesn't describe the subject, including the NYT ones, and arrests which falls under WP:BLP1E Delete Secret ^account 17:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Keep. There are 2 New York Times articles, 3 years apart. He is noted for early opposition to Iraq war, and is an editor of the Catholic Worker,a publication that has an article in Wikipedia. He is a noted anti-war activist. If this move for deletion is politically motivated, a deletion would violate neutral point of view standards. It is difficlt to tell if it is or not, as the motion for deletion is anonymous. (sorry, that was incorrect. Secret is not secret. My bad. Pustelnik (talk) 14:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence whatsoever that this nomination is politically motivated, so please assume good faith. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of the reliable sources in the article, they're all only trivial mentions, if even that. Then a news search comes up with nothing conclusive. As much as I wanted to keep it, I have to say delete on this one. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. He seems to be doing notable activities and he has been cited by the NYT. Further more in some cases when someone is doing credible or noteworthy work and the Mass Media gives them only a minimum amount of attention that should often be enough. The rule on notability gives the mass media to much veto power. In order to be notable the Mass Media has to recognize someone and the Mass Media often ignores people who deserve the bully pulpit but don't go along with the agenda of the Mass Media. Wikipedia shouldn't just say ditto every time the mass Media speaks Zacherystaylor (talk) 17:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember that our notability guidelines are not concerned whether anyone "deserves" an article. They an indication that the world at large has taken sufficient note of a subject for us to be able to write a neutral article based on reliable sources, which include much more than just the "Mass Media" - in fact, sources such as academic books and papers count for much more than coverage in the mass media such as tabloid newpapers. A Wikipedia article is not a reward for good works. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The way rules are enforced are often inconsistent. In many cases the people that are given more attention by the Mass Media are given preferential treatment over published scholars. The NYT isn't a tabloid and in many cases there are a lot of notable things that are much more important than what either the Mass Media or Wikipedia are presenting to the public, this is just a minor item as far as I know, but it is an example of some efforts to delete things that people disagree with. This is one of many minor articles that aren't that important but the ones that I have seen AfD are often political in nature. Trivial non controversial articles are less likely to be targeted they are just ignored. For example List of minor characters in Judge Dredd is a harmless article which no one seems to concerned about. But when there is a political agenda they are more likely to be targeted. Your statement that there is no evidence that it isn't in good faith is probably false but it would take to much work to refute it. It might require a statistical analysis of AfDs which I don't care to do. Also the claim that Wikipedia isn't censored (officially) should give the benefit of the doubt to keep if it was sincere. Zacherystaylor (talk) 15:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 05:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While more sourcing would be helpful, Google Books, Blogs, and News searches turn up enough evidence to conclude that the subject is a notable spokesman for one or more of the organizations mentioned in the article and also a plausible search term. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:31, 24 December 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.