Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glenn Spencer

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. Tone 17:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Spencer[edit]

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

Individual has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. Founder of a non-notable "anti-immigration group" that produces some noise but fails to get substantial independent media coverage. Jmundo (talk) 18:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Jmundo (talk) 18:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete Finally got this article to be something other than a mouthpiece for Spencer's racist ideals. Seems like there ought to be more on him but I couldn't really find any reliable sources demonstrating his notability. Also the lack of recent edits on what otherwise might be an article on a controversial person seems to speak volumes for his notability. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 22:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is thinly sourced and has been tagged wikth various problems going bask as far as 2007. Will Beback talk 01:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Thinly sourced" is not a reason for deletion, as long as it is sourced, as it now is.. And an article having been tagged for problems just means they have to be resolved. We do not delete articles because we have difficulty editing them DGG ( talk ) 03:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree - a lack of good sources is an indication of a lack of notability. The relevance of the tags is that they urged editors to improve the sourcing yet no improvements occurred, which means either folks weren't interested or the sources don't exist. If we can find sources that meet the requirements of WP:N then I'm fine with keeping the article. Will Beback talk 20:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This google news search result shows a couple of articles behind pay walls. Although I've not ponied up the money to look at the articles, the very fact that the articles use him as the headline points to him being the primary subject of the article. There's tons more search results, which include him being mentioned or quoted which wouldn't count towards notability, but it's quite evident that sources do exist. Cleaning up the article is an editting issue. -- Whpq (talk) 17:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's interesting to read about US-centric views about their neighbours and illuminating to know that such views exist. One would hope that through education, fewer people would discriminate on simplistic grounds such as this gentleman appears to do. To know that such people exist gives those of us who like to promote education a good motivation for doing so. Matt Stan (talk) 18:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - his radicalism is what makes him notable; I've found lots of more reliable news sources, see [1]. Bearian (talk) 20:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are headlines with his name in it, which seems to be enough. A notable player in a political movement is notable. Shadowjams (talk) 08:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bearian.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:18, 5 November 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.