- Steven Crowder (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Improved Page 5minutes (talk) 00:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
The original page was deleted by Black Kite. The original question was whether Mr. Crowder was notable enough and whether there were enough independent references to his career. I had suggested to the user who recommended the deletion that the article be tagged for improvement. He strongly disagreed. At the end of the discussion, the users who'd commented supported keeping the page by a margin of 6-2. Black Kite deleted the page. I recreated the page (I now know this was improper, and that I should have come here first - my apologies), adding links to improve the references and removing some of the more unverifiable data. I informed Black Kite. Shortly thereafter, the page was tagged for speedy deletion due to it having been a previously deleted page, and Fastily deleted the page. Based on the improvements that addressed the concerns that the original deletion requester had and based on the overwhelming opinion of the users on the original page's Talk page, I would like to request that the page that Fastily deleted should be restored. 5minutes (talk) 00:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To any passing admin- Any chance we can get a look at both versions of the claim? Thanks. Umbralcorax (talk) 02:20, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. The AfD-ed version is tempundeleted at Steven Crowder, the revised one userfied at User:5minutes/Steven Crowder, each with its appropriate talk page history. Note to closer: - if kept, this will require a history merge to put it all back together - ping me to do it, if you like, as I can remember what I did. JohnCD (talk) 12:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not suprised the original deletion closed as delete, it's not a vote so saying 6-2 is somewhat misleading. It's about quality of argument relative to the required policy. Most for keeping were very weak - bald assertions of notability, promises that the sources were out there somewhere, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS etc. If the cached version is anything to go by I'm not seeing the non-trivialcoverage in third party independant reliable sources. Youtube videos aren't generally reliable sources, IMDB is not a reliable source, Official bios fail to be independent and will generally be trying to portray a certain image so need to be taken with a pinch of salt for anything other than basic facts. Their own works also doesn't demonstrate much, I can demonstrate I've done a load of work it doesn't make me notable, if anything the reverse - I've a load of work out there in public, but no one is actually interested in me to write about me (which is what is required by the GNG, writing about me directly and in detail). What appears to me to be the most comprehensive piece is on a blog which doesn't appear to meet the requirement of being a reliable source either. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 09:20, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Both Afd Close and re-delete, let it remain as a user page then when the third-party, independent, reliable sources come to light add them, then come back here. Mtking (talk) 20:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I realize that the mere mention of Fox News can rile folks on both sides of the political aisle, but as it is an independent, third party (and arguably reliable) source, would using Fox News as a reference (and Breitbart) not qualify the user page version? 5minutes (talk) 20:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no issue with Fox News, but as a contributor to the company, it is not a third-party and not sufficiently independent to use to judge notability. Mtking (talk) 21:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't the fox new reference actually just a list of articles that he's written. i.e. it's not an article about the subject. Irresepective, how can you claim independence, he writes for fox. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 21:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So... a CNN article about how he writes for Fox News would be OK, but his bio on Fox News isn't? 5minutes (talk) 21:52, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What's needed is evidence that people independent of him and his employers have thought him important enough to write about. JohnCD (talk) 21:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The requirement from the WP:GNG is multiple independent reliable sources giving non-trivial coverage. Non-trivial is listed as writing about the subject directly and in detail, showing a list of the articles they've written for fox is not addressing the subject directly and in detail. As he writes for Fox any bio they show is likely to be skewed to present him in the manner suitable for their purposes - it's not independent. It's also not showing they believe the world has a more general interest in him, since they'll do such bios as matter of course for contributors. The same is true for the other bio's you referenced. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 06:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And this is why I hesitated to bring up Fox. I could care less about the links to his articles (although a single link to them is reasonable, but not as a reference), but his biography at any of those sites is, IMO, a worthwhile source, barring the discovery of his birth certificate. 5minutes (talk) 13:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As sources they may certainly be useful for certain things, basic facts etc. For other things you would have to consider the nature of the sources and as to if they are going to be reliable. What they aren't useful for is notability and that's the principal issue here, there aren't sources which show the world in general are interested in knowing about this person. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 18:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse as AfD closer - this wasn't even a difficult decision, actually. Every single Keep is either "X has a wiki page, so why can't he" or "he's notable and there are sources" whilst providing only primary and non-independent ones. Crowder may well be notable, but there's nothing in the AfD pointing out why. The proliferation of SPAs and IPs are suspicious - probably some off-wiki canvassing there - but in the end make no difference either. The repeated claims that the page was being AfD'd for political reasons were pretty unimpressive as well. Black Kite (t) (c) 08:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I wanted to steer the conversation away from the political (although, we have to admit that human beings are going to be political when it comes to political subjects), although I admittedly got sarcastic with the AfD proposer by the time it was over with. Certainly, though, asking for the community to improve an article on a community-driven encyclopedia is preferable to deleting an article because someone's opinion doesn't take its time. As for off-wiki canvassing, I'm not aware of any. I have asked folks at his fan sites to provide me with independent, third-party sources for verifiable data, however, so I can't guarantee that they wouldn't come in to voice their opinions. 5minutes (talk) 13:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I endorse Black Kite's close of the AfD. I don't endorse Fastily's speedy deletion, because I don't see it as strictly within criteria; the new version wasn't substantially identical to the deleted version. But, notwithstanding that, I don't see the userspace version as being ready for the mainspace quite yet. This is a biography of a living person, so our rules require that we be quite strict about the need for independent, reliable sources. So my overall position is keep deleted.—S Marshall T/C 13:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse as the AfD nominator, I stand by my argument that no independent published secondary sources exist. All the sources added to the userspace version are blog posts which aren't presented in the slightest journalistic or non-trivial fashion. This subject is not notable enough for an article in the mainspace. comment An article on Fox News's website would qualify under the notability criteria if it had an author, gave non-trivial coverage, and was published in a journalistic format. The link provided did not have an author listed and it was written in the promoting manner described above. Rogerthat94 (talk) 09:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse the deletion. I was one of the delete !voters on the AFD, and nothing has changed enough to show that the standard of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" has been met. Dawn Bard (talk) 16:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So what we're getting so far is that the 3-4 people involved in the deletion think it should remain deleted? I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you! 5minutes (talk) 17:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. Black Kite assessed the discussion correctly in that those who argued to keep did so based on secondary sources (at best), and no proper sources have been presented to justify moving the userfied version to mainspace - frankie (talk) 19:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
