Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Southern Avenger

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Consensus (after discounting the canvassed newbie opinions) is that he does not currently have coverage that is quantitatively and qualitatively sufficient to meet WP:BIO.  Sandstein  18:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Southern Avenger

[edit]
The Southern Avenger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Procedural nom; this has been speedied three times (by three different admins) in the last 10 days, so bringing it over to get a consensus; is it a) a viable stub, in which case we can leave it alone, or b) something deletable, in which case we can from now on G4 it as fast as it pops up and/or salt it. Procedural nom so I abstain.  – iridescent 22:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lew Rockwell has posted his articles, and is even listed as the first source on the LewRockwell.com article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filthy swine (talk • contribs) 00:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Please explain in more detail which criteria in WP:BIO he meets. One college newspaper interview that glosses over his politics is not substantial enough to establish notability. He is not widely recognized as a newspaper columnist or as a political commentator in any of the respective communities. He needs more significant coverage. The Avenger is already mentioned in the Charleston City Paper article, any more attention to him would unbalance the article. Themfromspace (talk) 00:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject appears to have a notability which has garnered some National attention. There seems to be an opportunity to explore the sources available before reaching a final decision on removal. --Stormbay (talk) 01:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see no national attention. Could you please provide links? Cheers, Dlohcierekim 13:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He appears to be gaining popularity in alternative media (I'm not a fan but...). There was a recent Wake-Up-America [1] appearance which would be national in that category. I feel that this type of media coverage seems generally widely accepted in Wikipedia and this subject seems to be made an exceptiom to that trend. Either way, delete or keep, this subject has adequate media coverage to deserve a fair hearing. --Stormbay (talk) 18:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This continues to qualify for CSD A7; the only thing which even seems to imply notability are the links, which fail to do so (as established at WP:BIO in which interviews and articles in student papers et cetera are not generally criteria). Also, having property destroyed because you made someone angry does not make you notable. This discussion is a good idea so we can salt. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 04:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I moved two newspaper articles to the References section. The Post and Courier (Charleston, SC) appears to be a reliable source. As for the Harvard Crimson, I think its coverage in this case contributes toward establishing notability. A student newspaper's coverage of (say) on-campus parking problems can be dismissed as trivial, but its coverage of an off-campus entertainer who presumably has nothing to do with Harvard is another matter. Even so, The Post and Courier's coverage is arguably substantial on its own. Whether this person believes what heavays is behind the point. He is an entertainer who has been written about in some depth by other media, and that is Wikipedia's definition of notability. --Eastmain (talk) 06:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Post and Courier is not a reliable source because it is not independant of the subject matter. The Southern Avenger is a columnist for that paper and the paper pays him to write for them. Of course he would show up in the paper, thats what he gets paid for.
  • Comment Rebuttal He does not work for the Post and Courier. He works for The Charleston City Paper.--Filthy swine (talk) 15:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Be that as it may, being covered by a local paper is not significant media coverage. He would require significant media coverage from a national paper. He does not get significant regional coverage for local notability. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 15:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a new source, The American Conservative: http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2008/07/21/summer-break/

Tell me that's not notable.--Filthy swine (talk) 18:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need to reread the notability, verifiability and reliable sources guidelines. It's a blog, and blogs are generally not considered reliable sources. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 18
46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
The American Conservative is not a blog. --Filthy swine (talk) 18
57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Huh, it says right in the link, "/blog/". Cheers, Dlohcierekim 21:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and this entry is not about him. It's telling us about a coming piece from him about someone else. In other words, The American Conservative is letting us know about a future appearance of his work. This is not the same as a reliable, verifiable source writing about him. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 21:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability has been proven. As a good wikipedian, I have never and shall never start a frivolous article. Check the articles started by me in my contributions record. I move that discussion be closed and the article removed from the list of articles for deletion.--Filthy swine (talk) 18:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is the only article you've ever started. – iridescent 22:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Layla Kayleigh Fry Street Fair. For a couple. The burden of proof is not on me. Nothing less than good faith can be shown when I start an article. I have a proven record of only starting notable articles. A small record, but indeed enough over a length of time to show a trend.--Filthy swine (talk) 23:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but the article needs more information. If more information cannot be provided, then it is a fruitless article. I know Jack is looking at this... add some more information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.207.105 (talk) 18:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC) — 68.58.207.105 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep, by all means. Wikipedia has many non-notable articles, such as the one on the "Flat Earth Society" that I just visited mere moments ago. This is a specious argument, most likely started by someone who disagrees with S.A.'s politics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.156.195.41 (talk) 19:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC) — 72.156.195.41 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Comment. Local newspapers are generally reliable sources. They can sometimes be lazy or reluctant to criticize local politicians or businesses, but in general they are reliable. While coverage in a national newspaper is helpful, it is not required. Similarly, campus newspapers are generally reliable sources. --Eastmain (talk) 20:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. However, the problem is that's all the subject seems to have very little local coverage and a mention in a college mag. This does not rise to the level of "significant media coverage" needed to claim notability. No national media. No claim to "household name status". No books about him. No scholarly essays or journals. We sometimes confuse these two issues. We can have all kinds of verifiable information about a subject that only establishes a lack of notability. Also, it can be very hard to find verifiable, reliable sources about subjects that are really notable. Such are the joys and sorrows of encyclopedists.Cheers, Dlohcierekim 21:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He is clearly a notable paleoconservative. You do not subscribe to that ideology, that is fine. But there is no sense in leading a one man crusade against someone that is clearly notable in his field.--Filthy swine (talk) 21:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At least 2 unbiased notable, sources have been cited as giving information about the subject, and at least 4 proving the subjuect's notability. There is no audience count assigned to the definition of notability. And as about the subject's importance, the subject is important as one of the few paleoconservative voices left. Paleoconservative commentary is not broadcast nationwide via the air waves or print. It is generally locally oriented. But the articles written and opinion expressed are shared throughout the national community of paleoconservatism.--Filthy swine (talk) 22:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The comment on http://southernavenger.ccpblogs.com/2008/08/04/alexander-solzhenitsyn-1918-2008/#comments is clearly The Kaleb's. Assume good faith by his part for lack of reference materials. Hanlon's Razor--Filthy swine (talk) 22:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To what, though? Jack Hunter(columnist), Jack Hunter(radio)--Filthy swine (talk) 22:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd go radio, unless we can find his middle name, which would be preferable.--King Bedford I Seek his grace 23:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the United States, Jack Hunter, provides an important voice of paleoconservative ideals, interviewing paleoconservative predidential, congressional and senatorial candidates strongly opposing those of the neoconservative philosophy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filthy swine (talk • contribs) 22:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Depth of coverage in secondary sources is insubstantial. His commentary may be entertaining, but that does not make it notable. If other local hosts each had a paragraph in the WTMA article, then this would probably warrant placement/merging there. - PennySpender1983 (talk) 01:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know nothing of the other local hosts, so the writing of their articles is your burden. Personal responsibility. I am not from Charleston, let alone South Carolina. So if it makes no sense to write about the Southern Avenger on the WTMA article for the lack of the other hosts' notability, then it stands that a separate article must be maintained for Jack Hunter for the sake of his apparent notability. --Filthy swine (talk) 17:29, 5 August 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Southern_Avenger&oldid=1138856332"