Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keith McHenry

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. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 08:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keith McHenry[edit]

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

Non notable person. Was speedied by me but removed by creator. Was then redirected to Food Not Bombs@Nyttend: but that too was reverted by creator. Gbawden (talk) 07:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, on the strength of sources found: [1][2][3][4][5][6]. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 07:37, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No reason given for deletion nomination or re-direct. I move to close the discussion. Cleshne (talk) 08:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reason the nominator is giving is "Non notable person", is it not? Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 08:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of secondary source coverage; Dylan's pulled up just news articles about what the guy's doing (and Forbes is just the guy answering questions; not even any substantial content written by the Forbes staff), and by definition, these are primary sources. Provide coverage in books, academic journals, major websites, and other things that are chronologically independent of the guy and his actions. Nyttend (talk) 12:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying use the stuff in the Forbes piece to cite statements in the article though am I. I'm saying the very fact that Forbes deem him worthy of being interviewed lends credence to his claims of notability, a la WP:INTERVIEWS. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 06:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources given by Dylanfromthenorth establish notability of this very minor political activist. since the name is not unique, I googled "Keith McHenry" + "Iraq War" and quite a few mentions and even interviews in small anti-war news outlets popped up.ShulMaven (talk) 13:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide secondary sources please? Primary sources do not contribute to notability. Nyttend (talk) 13:42, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have not experienced anything like this on Wikipedia, and think that there is a question of good faith as well as a political agenda. First the complaint was non-notable person, and the article was deleted and redirected before a debate took place; now the problem is lack of secondary sources. Next it will be grammar? Cleshne (talk) 15:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 09:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ The reason for deletion originally given was "non-notable person." I think this is resolved after more info was added and others also found notability. After the page was deleted without debate or consensus by another user, Nyttend, the issue of secondary sources was brought up, but I have never seen that as a reason for the deletion of an article, which was originally created as a stub. I would like to see the pending deletion notice removed from the page. Cleshne (talk) 05:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Struck your bolded !vote above. Comments are unlimited, but you can only !vote once in an AfD czar ⨹ 05:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Dylanfromthenorth and WP:INTERVIEWS, interviews may be primary sources but they do count as an indication of notability. We treat Food Not Bombs as a notable organization, well sourced. As a founder and leader of that organization and a frequently interviewed activist, I think he's notable enough. I did add a {{more footnotes}} tag. The article could use more inline cites. – Margin1522 (talk) 17:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc21 16:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Dylanfromthenorth - Direct coverage in multiple mid to high quality RS's. NickCT (talk) 16:42, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly meets WP:GNG. Inline citations would sure have been useful, though (not to mention required for BLPs). 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:57, 8 December 2014 (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.