- Wayne Dupree (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
This request for review is being made, without prejudice, on behalf of an inexperienced editor, Cllgbksr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), who wishes to appeal against the deletion of the article on several grounds. It's probably best to simply give: (1) a link to his comments to Bishonen the deleting admin, on her talk page, requesting reconsideration; and (2) a link to the article (now temporarily undeleted by 'Shonen) just prior to deletion. RexxS (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am requesting a review of deletion of the Wayne Dupree article based on following reasons:
(1) After the page was nominated for deletion, multiple articles were added, most notable the article [1]. The author, Frances Rice: "is a lawyer and retired U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel who was awarded the Legion of Merit. She was designated as one of “America's Top 100 Black Business and Professional Women” by the editorial board of Dollars and Sense magazine. Currently, she is chairman of the National Black Republican Association, as well as a screenwriter and producer of documentaries with Block Starz Music Television LLC, a company she co-founded."
(2) The Newsmax article names Dupree in the same group as Dr. Ben Carson, Clarence Thomas, Karl Malone, Alveda King niece of Martin Luther King Jr to name a few...
(3) The author Frances Rice further wrote: "The people who made Newsmax’s 50 Most Influential African-American Republicans list this year went beyond just being recognized personalities. They actively promote the Republican Party’s rich civil rights legacy and agenda for delivering prosperity, security, and freedom for every neighborhood in America, thereby, enhancing the party’s image."
(4) Dupree receives coverage in his ranking paragraph (small bio).
(5) While recently searching social media on Dupree, was surprised to stumble on the nominating AfD editor, who basically said never intended for Dupree to go to deletion, and a consensus had been made before the Newsmax article was posted. [2]
I'm asking that this article be considered again and that it is suitable for WP. Cllgbksr (talk) 19:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This seems to be just rehashing the arguments in the AFD. I was watching the discussion to the end, but none of the sources added provided any substantial coverage so there was no reason to comment further after my initial !vote. SmartSE (talk) 14:12, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Observation Ran a keyword search on WP using "liberal radio host" and found [3]. Thinly sourced. First reference is a "404 no record found". [4]. Why does that article pass muster but Dupree's doesn't?Cllgbksr (talk) 15:06, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You really ought to have a look at the essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, particularly
Plenty of articles exist that probably should not. Equally, a lot of articles do not exist that probably should. Therefore, just pointing out that an article on a similar subject exists does not prove that the article in question should also exist; it is quite possible that the other article should also be deleted but nobody has noticed it. If I had to take a guess, I'd say that Goldman came to notice as a broadcaster over 10 years ago, and has some claim to notability as a lawyer as well. He's just been around longer. I agree it's thin stuff, even with 10+ years of potential coverage, but the question of whether Norman Goldman would survive an AfD debate is simply off-topic for this DRV. HTH --RexxS (talk) 18:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- In support of review Per WP:BASIC "if depth-of-coverage is not substantial, then multiple less-than-substantial independent sources may be needed to prove notability". It re-states that coverage "must be more than trivial and must be reliable". to wit: The Newsmax article gives Dupree coverage in his ranking slot bio [5] + Breitbart article [6](Dupree headlines article, more than trivial mention) + Dupree's appearances on CNN, MSNBC and FOXN [7], [8], [9],[10], all "multiple less than substantial sources", all combined per WP:BASIC, establish Duprees notability. Cllgbksr (talk) 20:05, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Observation There is a significant in quotes misquote/misrepresentation of WP:BASIC in the above. The actual quote is, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." "Less than substantial" is interpolated into the text.@Cllgbksr: @RexxS: **Tapered (talk) 05:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Correction @Tapered: @RexxS: I should have copy/pasted it in instead of typing it in. My mistake. When considering "In support of review", please apply the standard from WP:BASIC "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." to articles/multiple cable network appearances mentioned. Cllgbksr (talk) 16:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Observation @Cllgbksr: Aspirin logic: two aspirin are good, twenty aspirin must be great = Trouble. Analogously, multiple insignificant/trivial mentions ≠ significance. In none of the articles is Dupree close to main subject of the article. He needs qualitatively different coverage. When and if that happens, his article will belong. Until then, WP:TOOSOON IMO. Tapered (talk) 23:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Observation@Tapered: @RexxS: Not getting the aspirin analogy. Even looked for that analogy in WP... Couldn't find it. Going to redirect to policy WP:Basic "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability.". The Newsmax and Breitbart articles are more than trivial mentions and apply. Cllgbksr (talk) 01:25, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Analogous was the wrong word, needed to read "Conversely." Here goes Just because 2 of something is good, doesn't mean 20 of something is. 20 can be dangerous—as per aspirin. "Conversely," if 1 of something is insignificant, 20 of something will (likely) not be significant. I just went through all the references. The most significant mentions were a paragaph in the NYTimes and in CNN. Everything else is insignificant. Two slightly significant mentions don't = "multiple" in this context. He'd need a bunch more. I hope you can see that. WP:TOOSOON. Tapered (talk) 02:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The WP:N and especially the GNG have a number of ambiguities and confusions. For example, the current wording of the sentence in bold above is inherently contradictory to the basic meaning of the GNG. The basis for the GNG, is that the outside world thinks the subject notable, as shown by outside sources that have considered the subject worthy of encyclopedic coverage, and therefore the subject belongs in an encyclopedia. That any number of sources have not considered the subject worthy of encyclopedic coverage but just of mentions, does not show that the outside world considers the subject notable. The proper use of that provision is to say that to some extent multiple sources can make up for technical deficiencies in meeting the requirement, thus giving the rule a certain amount of flexibility; I think this is similar to Tapered's explanation above. (my own personal view is that the GNG is fatally contradictory in several ways: internally, in its relation to the SNGs and other factors which we use to decide; in compatibility with common sense; in accomplishing balance; and in suitability for an encyclopedia that it should be thrown out and started over, just as we would do with any equally confused article. This view unfortunately does not have general support. So the best I can do is work within its limits and aim at some approximation with reality.) DGG ( talk ) 10:25, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I sympathise with David's views, but have a slightly different take on them. I believe that the coverage of a subject in any given source lies on a spectrum from "barest mention" to "full article devoted to them", with many sources falling somewhere between the two. However, I also believe that if we are going to accept that several articles in which the coverage is middling add up to one which has full coverage, we also have to have a "cut-off" point, below which these sources don't count at all. In other words, even a thousand tweets that simply mention a name don't count towards fulfilling GNG, while four or five articles that have a few paragraphs about the subject are roughly as indicative of notability as a single article about her/him/it. I accept that where the cut-off point is placed will have to be subjective, but I think having one is the only way to make sense of our current policy in the light of the explosion of social media. --RexxS (talk) 11:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- we do not fundamentally disagree--it's a question of degree and interpretation; there can be more than one reasonable opinion, and the only way to decide is by consensus at the discussion of the individual article. DGG ( talk ) 03:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
|
