Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethan McBride

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:20, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan McBride

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

Non-notable individual lacking in-depth and non-trivial support created by COI. Verges on WP:ADVERT. reddogsix (talk) 14:08, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's a fairly clear conflict of interest here — if the subject didn't create it himself, then a personal friend of his certainly did (the giveaway being that nobody without a conflict of interest ever thinks they need to upload six different photos to illustrate a stub.) There's simply no strong claim of encyclopedic notability here, and no very strong reliable source coverage to carry it — apart from a single local news story, the "referencing" here is otherwise almost entirely to primary sources and blogs. The only thing in the external linkfarm that looks like a potentially strong source in theory, Teen Vogue, turns out to be a very general analysis of the general phenomenon of teen LGBTQ activism, entirely failing to single McBride out for even a mention of his name. So it does absolutely nothing to help. I wish him well, but we don't exist as a venue for honouring unsung people who do good work — we have specific notability and sourceability standards that have to be attained before an article becomes earned, and none of this (neither the substance nor the sourcing) reaches the necessary targets. Bearcat (talk) 21:44, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Linkfarm issue can be resolved by deleting most egregious links. To borrow a legal term, since McBride has the potential of notability later in his career, I would like it to be without prejudice if article is recreated later on if he is wiki worthy. MensanDeltiologist (talk) 21:51, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion today does not prevent the article from being recreated in the future if and when he attains something that passes our notability criteria. So no, we don't keep an article today just because of what might become true in the future — if he doesn't already have enough notability to qualify for an article today, then we delete the article today, and if and when his notability changes it can be recreated. Bearcat (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:11, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:11, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:11, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:11, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as PROMO for a non-notable political activist, my searches show that it is far WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails both WP:ANYBIO & WP:PROMO. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:40, 22 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.