Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Dice

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. The discussion shows this is a marginal case, but it appears the argument to keep slightly has the upper hand. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:57, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Dice[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:BASIC and WP:AUTHOR. While this article has over a thousand revisions, I fail to see any claim of significance at all. Some might consider the Digital Journal articles significant coverage, but I find them rather narrowly focused. I was half-tempted to take the article to AfD a few months ago as I noticed a lack of significant coverage in most of these Twitter personality articles, but most of them were kept if they were nominated for deletion. I have since noticed a trend towards deleting these articles, albeit a good deal of them riddled with BLP violations, except if they were notable in some other way e.g. by passing WP:AUTHOR (and here the subject does not). wumbolo ^^^ 17:01, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

very weak keepI see a fair amount of third party coverage, burt much if it seems pretty trivial. I'll go for weak keep for now but its not by much.Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:50, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:50, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:50, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:22, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep generally coverage in the New York Times, The Guardian, BBC, and books published by reputable publishers indicates notability. It’s small coverage, but coverage in major outlets isn’t exactly the same as your local paper, and there’s enough of it here that we shouldn’t be deleting the article (which would amount to a white wash as Dice hates it because it fairly and accurately portrays him.) TonyBallioni (talk) 18:39, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. For anyone interested, let me post a comprehensive list of links to all the coverage that TonyBallioni is referring to above. The New York Times only has this [1]. The Guardian has [2] [3] [4]. The BBC has [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]. I'm not sure which books TonyBallioni is referring to. wumbolo ^^^ 19:32, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mere mentions of a social media personality do not add up to pass WP:GNG. Subject fails WP:AUTHOR and does not meet notability guidelines. Significant coverage of the subject is glaringly nonexistent. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 22:44, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh, the New York Times devoted three paragraphs to the man: that alone gets us pretty close to notability simply based on the weight of the source. The Guardian has covered his antics before, and the BBC citation in the article (not to mention the others cited above) give substantial coverage. The book source is currently source 5:Newton Lee (23 October 2016). Google It: Total Information Awareness. Springer. p. 526, that is just a mention, I'll give it to you, but it is important in context: it is comparing him to Alex Jones, which is a pretty strong indication of the level of notoriety he has risen to. In addition to those sources we have one from the Hollywood Reporter, which certainly gives substantial coverage. This is an article about a notable conspiracy theorist who doesn't like the fact that Wikipedia calls him a conspiracy theorist (hint: sources say he is one). Additionally, the fact that he is quoted so often in major international publications (NYT, Guardian, WaPo, Fortune) is a pretty strong indicator that he is a significant figure on the parts of the internet he inhabits. Deleting this article would be a disservice to our readers who have a right to know unbiased and factual information about this person who is attempting to influence their political views. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:13, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Deleting this article would be a disservice to our readers who have a right to know unbiased and factual information about this person who is attempting to influence their political views. We aren't Ballotpedia. wumbolo ^^^ 21:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, but we do provide a service to the public in this regard, which is fully in line with WP:5P1. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:57, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Writer and commentator who is subject of discussion in multiple reliable sources. Author of multiple books. Sagecandor (talk) 22:20, 30 September 2018 (UTC) blocked sock PackMecEng (talk) 19:42, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TonyBallioni. funplussmart (talk) 20:46, 5 October 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.