Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gailen David

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2017 March 4.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. As self promotion, which is not to say that a good faith user without a COI couldn't have a stab at creating this as long as it was possible to do so based on sources without overly dwelling on negative aspects such as the court cases. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gailen David[edit]

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

I'm not sure whether he is or is not notable, but I am sure that this is an advertisement for him. If an article is needed, it should be started over from scratch. DGG ( talk ) 17:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Entirely promotional article, created and maintained by SPA accounts. The only possibly "notable" incident, David's video campaign, would fall under WP:BLP1E, if it would be notable in itself. Talkshow appearances, brief "interviews" and other PR-activities do not establish notability, unless they are covered in-depth by independent reliable sources. I couldn't find such significant coverage via Google. GermanJoe (talk) 00:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this. Who is this guy? He seems to have written his own entry.... shameless self promotion — Preceding unsigned comment added by JakobLouis (talk • contribs) 04:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC) — JakobLouis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep - the subject of the article has received significant RS coverage for his activities to the point where Discovery hired him to host a TV show. Much of the coverage is biographical in nature (including several sources already in the article), and the coverage spans multiple years, so notability is clear established. I disagree that the tone of the article is sufficient reason for deletion, although it certainly could be improved. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:34, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although there are numerous articles, most are around a single video that he created (but that appeared on Youtube and his own web site only). He was also sued for using airline logos on his site. None of this adds up to notability. Also, his page was partially edited by a now-blocked COI user, which fits in with what I see as a pattern of self-promotion. LaMona (talk) 21:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument seems to be that he isn't notable because he didn't do important things. That is indeed how the real world defines "notability", but Wikipedia defines notability based on depth and length of coverage, not the cause of the coverage. If all articles appeared in say the same week and none of them covered David as a person, then he would be not notable. However, here the coverage is over a long period of time (multiple years) and in some cases is biographical. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ThaddeusB, I definitely read the notability guidelines differently. If someone has not done anything "important" but gets coverage, to me the coverage does not trump notability. Let's face it, there's a lot of garbage in our media -- from "eye-bait" headlines to filler. I think that a modicum of evaluation is better than a mere quantity of sources. The source requirement does not exist alone, but supports an argument of importance. That's my view. LaMona (talk) 16:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is "importance" is subjective. To some people acting in a film isn't important. To other playing a sport professional isn't important. When we allow for subjective judgement of importance, AfDs will be decided randomly by who shows up. I learned early on in my Wikipedia career that "notability" means coverage, not importance, when this guy was up for AfD. It is hard to imagine a person doing less to be worthy of inclusion - his claim to fame is exclusively that he impregnated the daughter of a vice presidential candidate - yet the AfD, which I voted "strong delete" on, was (properly) closed as keep because editor judgement of importance can't override media judgement of importance. It doesn't matter whether we think someone should be notable, only whether reliable sources (including the news media) treats them as such. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (vote see above) Just as information, I nominated two of the non-free images for deletion as they both lack valid rationales. Aside from that point and regardless of this discussion's result: the article will need a complete overhaul and removal of promotional and poorly sourced content (if it would be kept in the first place). GermanJoe (talk) 07:41, 30 April 2015 (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.