Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vermin Supreme (2nd nomination)

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. Sandstein 05:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vermin Supreme

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

This article is about an eccentric entertainer with poor sources. The last discussion had no consensus, and thus this article should be relisted. SOXROX (talk) 15:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (a reversal of my previous position) because there does seem to be significant coverage listed in the article. I'm thinking particularly of the NPR source, the Miami Herald and the Boston Globe source, the Internet Archive version of which goes into great detail regarding Mr Supreme. ╟─Treasury Tag►person of reasonable firmness─╢ 15:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's about an eccentric entertainer who has, despite the nominator's opinion, garnered several WP:RS. They have no chance of election, but that's not one of our criteria. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:19, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per significant coverage in reliable sources. Contrary to what the nominator says, the last discussion actually closed as keep. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Again, just as the previous AFD was a keep, not a "no consensus" (sorry Soxrock24, but the AFD does specifically shows it as a keep per admin User:Spartaz who was the closer). Yes, Vermin Supreme is an oddball, to be sure, but just as User:TreasuryTag points out, research finds multiple reliable sources speaking about the fellow directly and in detail. WP:GNG is met. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the Keep result from the first Afd was controversial, as evidenced by this thread.--JayJasper (talk) 05:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no... not "evidenced" by that link to a discussion edited only by three editors in this current conversation that wish to delete, but thank you. While the notices placed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States presidential elections,[1][2] do not quite amount to fourum shopping, it did not result in any overturn of a proper close. The previous AFD discussion of one month ago involved a number of respected editors and did not show any conspiracy that the AFD discussion had been "hijacked by a cult". While an editor not liking the result of properly closed AFD might be a reason to take the close to DRV (not done),[3] it does not require a renomination just one month later. As for me, and not being a member of a cult, it is difficult to ignore the intructions at WP:GNG about how significant coverage in multiple reliable sources allows a topic to be considered worthy of note. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete consensus from the previous AFD was misinterpreted by the closing administrator. There was a clear consensus to create a new article that merged all the "satirical" candidates together. The individual is not notable as a candidate nor as an individual; he has received only a handful of mentions for being a "satirical" candidate. He may seem to be the subject of this article, but in reality, the subject is "satirical candidacy".--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel that User:Spartaz erred so greviously in his close, then why no DRV? Extensive and significant coverage for even a "satirical candidate" still makes the topic and individual worthy of note. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. "Vermin Supreme" is not even an individual. As you can see here, it is the character used by a non-notable man interfering in wikipedia's processes and allegedly using a cult to further these goals (see the debacle at the previous AFD for evidence of this). He is no different than Ole Savior, President Emperor Caesar, or any of the other "Satirical candidates". All of the information in this article right now can be added to a small blurb in the proposed article. It would be an accurate reflection of the type of coverage the character receives. --William S. Saturn (talk) 17:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but not a reasonable argument, as even Luke Skywalker and Captain Kirk are not a "real" individuals. Notability, even for the topic of fictional characters and performance artists are determined by coverage of those characters and artists... which coverage this individual has. And no, though it has no bearing on THIS discussion, the earlier AFD was not a debacle, as it was properly closed after a neutral admin considered the arguments, dispite your (non-DRV'd) stating that the neutral closer was in error, and despite the planning renomination after 1 month. WP:WAX arguments and comparisons aside, we look to WP:GNG for determining notability. For this performance artist it has been met and the presumption of notability has not been rebutted, only denied. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's very disingenuous to compare the character "Vermin Supreme" to such major characters as Luke Skywalker and Captain Kirk. But let's compare G-news figures since that seems to be your measure of notability. Captain Kirk brings up just under 14,000 g-news hits, while Luke Skywalker brings up over 20,000. There is no comparison of these two to a character that brings up only 116 articles. 116 articles from mostly local newspapers of mostly trivial mentions should not allow a character to pass the criteria of notability based only on coverage. You have not disputed that the character is just a (small) part of a notable topic.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a WAX response to your own. Do not take offense by my using a more recognizable example of how non-real characters can be found notable. And while I can thank you for sharing an irrelevant WP:GHITS number, and as I stated above, cherry picking non-significant sources does not diminish nor refute the significant coverage that is found. GNG does not require 20,000 results or 2,000 results or even 200 results. What WP:SIGCOV does require is multiple significant coverage in reliable independent sources. We have those. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I brought up the number of g-hits only because you brought it up previously. I compel you to find several substantial articles other than those continually brought up from the Boston Globe, NPR or Miami Herald. Perhaps you feel differently, but I strongly disagree that three articles covering a subject makes that subject notable. The mentions or blurbs in all the other sources show nothing more than the notability of the "satirical candidacy" subject. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Er, no... I never brought some "umpteen number" g-hits as an argument for or agianst, but I did bring up that "multiple instances of significant coverage in relaible sources" as provided by others adequately meets the GNG for this performance artist, while pointing out that cherry picking a few out of the many does not mean the the more suitable ones are somehow unsuitable. The GNG has been met. Spartaz closed the last AFD correctly and more importantly, neutrally. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's what you continue to assert, but you do so without evidence. Are there more than three significant sources? Have you looked over all the sources listed from g-news to see how many are just mentions and how many are significant? Can you not provide concrete evidence to support your argument rather than repeating the same lines over and over? I'm not arguing that the closing admin was non-neutral, I state that he ignored the arguments of depth of coverage, which you are also ignoring. You also ignore the fact that the subject would be reflected in a more encyclopedic context as part of a broader article (No one has argued against this).--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In reverse order: 1. Tone and style of an article on notable topics that don't violate WP:NOT or WP:BLP are best dealt with through regular editing, not deletion. 2. You have repeatedly argued that you feel Spartaz was incorrect on his close, and yet last June 15 you conceived a plan to either write a different article and redirect (against that keep consensus) and/or renominate the article,[4] which would act to do an end run around DRVing a close with which you diagreed. 3. As for depth of coverage over a many years period and in multiple reliable sources which speak toward the topic directly and in some detail (even if not the primary topic of the coverage), not in sources considered "only local" coverage, and yet available to anyone who clicks the Findsources above, we find the topic sourcable to The Economist Fort Worth Star Telegram ABC News Chicago Sun-Times Hartford Courant Boston Phoenix Concord Monitor New Yok Daily News New York Times et al, as well as to multiple books and scholatic studies. And even with the RS that due concentrate on the subject as the main topic, it is common sense that some of these other reliable sources will deal with the subject in relationship to what he does and how it effects others. THAT allows us balance and context. WP:SIGCOV is met. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:36, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what you provided: zero books with significant coverage of the character, zero articles of significance from the scholar search (will you ever learn that g-hits are not a measure of notability?), and nine articles that merely mention the character. Did you actually read any of these pieces?--William S. Saturn (talk) 01:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good. We're finally not speaking about unfounded claims that a cult has taken over an earlier AFd and we're not besmirching an admin who performed a reasonable close. However now, when provided with specific news citations that show the topic as meeting WP:SIGCOV, you distract by implying that I only offered g-hits. PER GUIDELINE: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". You have been unable to rebut the established presumtion of notability, and now seem to wish to concentrate on the more-than-trivial (even if perhaps less-than-main-topic) coverage of a few books as a means to distract from the topic having been now been well established as meeting WP:SIGCOV through multiples of reliable news sources. And no, I do not have to read all the news articles see the sense of the many I have read so as to see that we have a wealth of information with which to improve and expand this article. So please pardon me, but as irritating as this performance artist is to some for his lampooning what is sometimes-perceived-as-broken electorial processes, I do not believe anything I say will sway from your pre-determined plan to rid Wikipedia of this article, just as you will never convince me that I can ignore WP:SIGCOV. Tone and style of any article on notable topic that does not violate WP:NOT or WP:BLP is best dealt with through regular editing, and not deletion... and not through an unneccessary merge. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per William S. Saturn. Agree that the consensus from previous discussion was misinterpreted. The "satirical candidacy" phenomenon, which Mr. Supreme is a part of, is what's notable rather than the individual himself. A consensus was formed to create a Satirical candidacy article. When it is created, the (brief) content of this article can and should be merged and redirected to that page.--JayJasper (talk) 05:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User:Spartaz did not err, and the plans of three editors is hardly a consensus. I do not always agree with him, but Spartaz weighed the arguments per policy and guideline and made a proper close. The GNG is the GNG, and the coverage available is far more than mere "mentions". Yes, as with any topic, one might cherry pick a source that is a mention, but it does not mean we can or should ignore those multiples that are not. And for an editor wishing it gone to state on June 15th "... we could just renominate it for deletion in a month or so",[5] feels, pardon me, of WP:IDONTLIKE and WP:KEEPLISTINGTILLITGETSDELETED. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The closing admin was clearly wrong. He failed to look at the questions of depth at the AFD, and even mistakenly argued that such arguments were not made.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That you and the closer have different opinions is noted,[6] as is his declaration to remain neutral and impartial. Disgreeing with his close, a WP:Deletion review would have been the guideline suggested choice, rather than avoiding DRV and renominating one month later.[7] I do not always agree with Spartaz, but I respect his impartial and knowledgable application of policy and guideline. The arguments herein should not concentrate on what you personaly perceive as wrong with a previous close, and concentrate rather on the topic's meeting of WP:SIGCOV. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment regarding "previous consensus misinterpreted" remarks: please read WP:NOTAGAIN. The previous result does not matter and it is important to address your remarks to the matter at hand, now. ╟─Treasury Tag►CANUKUS─╢ 08:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has certainly received significant coverage as a performance artist, if not as a politician. This includes a two thousand word profile in the Boston Globe and other non-trivial articles (for example [8]). See you all again next month. Qrsdogg (talk) 19:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Bedford Journal newsletter is a great source to prove notability.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, The Boston Globe coverage is neither insignificant nor unreliable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You feel one source proves notability?--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I read above where others have offered more than one to thus show the topic as meeting WP:SIGCOV. One or five or ten decent sources, supported by the verifiability offered through the even larger amount of slightly less significant coverage, supports notability for this topic. It is worthy of note. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I see nothing wrong with using multiple sources of mixed qualities that converge on evidence of notability. While some of them provide less-than-ideal coverage, there are others that do more than just mention the subject (e.g. The Economist article and the Boston Phoenix article). Also, significant coverage does not mean the subject needs to be the main topic of the source material per WP:SIGCOV. With all the articles that were provided by MichaelQSchmidt (and kudos for the excellent research), there's no question in my mind that this article should be kept. Furthermore, while AfD is not about clean-up, there is surely potential for this article to be expanded beyond its current state with the new sources. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that three news articles and a few others with scattered mentions represents "significant coverage".--William S. Saturn (talk) 15:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then we will agree to disagree about the definition of WP:SIGCOV. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 15:45, 21 July 2011 (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.