Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Stuchbery

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Stuchbery[edit]

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

WP:RECENTISM/WP:BLP1E/WP:LOWPROFILE/WP:NACADEMIC. The subject became the topic of news coverage recently for a series of tweets countering assertions by an alt-right blogger on Twitter. Before that, the subject was a schoolteacher. The sources on the article are mainly about the Twitter event, and a few reprises of other events on Twitter. Then, there are primary sources like tweets and YouTube videos. There is practically no third-party coverage of the subject's non-Twitter writing or podcasting, which is his work. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 23:03, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page already has a COI tag, author may have been making a WP:POINT about Wikipedia including an article on the subject's Twitter opponent Paul Joseph Watson [1] Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 23:19, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Delete The article is primarily based on a single social media exchange, and, prior to editing, the article was heavily biased in favour of Stuchbery's personal views, possibly by Stuchbery himself or a close confidant. All relevant information provided by the article can be found by simply observing the social media exchange in question. TheOneTrueMin (talk) 12:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The event is not notable, and even if it was Stuchbery himself is clearly not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:45, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete How is this person notable enough to have a personal biography page? Stuchbery is a literal "who" that receives no attention outside of an extremely insular twitter community, and from 5 minutes in the sun months ago, from again, a meaningless twitter spat. He has done no major works, and is completely removed from the greater public debate sphere. There are far more famous people with many more public accomplishments with no biography, and wiki has a very high standard for creating one. Before the recent clean up, this article was ridiculously biased and elementary as well, promoting that this was made by some sycophant, or even Stuchbery himself. This article should be deleted.2601:982:4201:D40:D5D3:6C8D:F3:620A (talk) 19:32, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Hi Mr IP (it's hard to tag you). The creator of the article said that he wrote the article independently of Stuchbery and only received two facts by e-mail (DOB and future projects). However, by knowing some other very private facts about him (most notably that he had a previous marriage, something that very few married men speak publicly about at all), using such promotional language and even blaming his Norfolk school debacle on local poverty (talk about classism!) I guess they are pretty close Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 10:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It may be worth it to WP:SALT here, as the only people who will recreate it will either be a WP:COI WP:PUFF editor like the creator here, or an alt-right troll. The fact is that the subject is not the "historian" he claimed to be, and as I said in an edit summary, he has quietly altered his online profiles to accept that. From what I gathered, at best he works in popular history, and I mean popular in approach rather than as appeal - he has fewer than 1,000 views on YouTube (yet his channel was mentioned on this article) and even with his recent buzz he hasn't reached the meagre goal on his Patreon. He may well know more than Paul Joseph Watson but Wikipedia is not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS - the article on Watson was deleted several times before there was sufficient third-party sources over a stretch of time. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 00:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. bd2412 T 21:16, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the creator padded this article out by WP:COATRACKing his own views, for his Twitter shows that he is a socialist. He wrote in Wikipedia's own voice that anti-Semitic anti-capitalism was not a part of Nazi ideology, while this Holocaust education website says "The position of the Jews at the centre of both political and economic affairs was perfect for theories of political conspiracy. It was relatively easy to accuse Jews of being in collusion with and responsible for communism, capitalism, liberalism, socialism, revolution, etc". Any high school textbook will tell you that Nazis and other fascists were opposed to the international nature of both capitalism and communism, hence the Third Position. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 11:18, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also consider this rant by the creator. You heard it here folks, if Paul Joseph Watson and Richard Spencer have articles, anyone who disagrees with them should too! Also I log out and fly on a plane to Pennsylvania to make talk page edits because nobody else agrees this page is non-notable Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 11:29, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That was an admittance of WP:POINT WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and skirting WP:NOTHERE by the creator Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 11:30, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable as an academic. Abrasapuentes (talk) 22:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Creator is also a financial cheerleader for the subject, which explains the hyperbole in the original version of the article [2] Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 23:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This page has been shared on Twitter by one of Stuchbery's rivals. Although everyone is entitled to vote, if you came here from that Twitter post, remember that this is not a poll. The decision is made on quality of arguments for and against, not votes. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 18:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Let's call it BLP-1E. Carrite (talk) 13:34, 4 October 2017 (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.