Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Jackson (politician)

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 is sourcing is insufficient, and there isn't a strong case being made for a redirect. Star Mississippi 03:02, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Jackson (politician)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Looking through the sources, this is, at best BLP1E, and at worst spam for a non notable micro nation. Common name, but still not seeing this meeting notability standards for BLPs. Courcelles (talk) 18:13, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, United Kingdom, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 18:16, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable person. He is on metro, MyLondon, pagina/12 and LaNacion, all high-traffic and trustworthy sources. Should lean away from micronations though — Preceding unsigned comment added by MicroSupporter (talk • contribs) 18:33, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Croatia, and Serbia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:39, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is this going to be another micronation-related flamewar? :) --Joy (talk) 19:11, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly hope not. I got here off an RFPP request to unprotect redirects created as a result of AFDs at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free Republic of Verdis and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Verdis (2nd nomination). A certain user does seem interested in making sure this topic has an article in one form or the other, though. Courcelles (talk) 21:06, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm all for micronations, but not only is he non-notable, the micro nation itself is non-notable. These sources do not look good. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:47, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Croatia–Serbia border dispute#Liberland_and_other_claims which is the only thing that he is known for. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:23, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why on Earth is this fantasy silliness worthy of even being mentioned on an article about a real world subject, though? Courcelles (talk) 22:43, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He's already mentioned at the suggested target so I'm not necessarily asking for more coverage on him than what is already on the project. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:23, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Nwhyte (talk) 20:59, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with MicroSupporter appears to be notable based on the sources. I have edited the article to address NPOV issues. Jack4576 (talk) 12:04, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The individual is notable and is on two of Argentina's largest news networks. As for 2023 sources, he is on myLondon and Metro, both of which are extremely notable in England. Joshuawoods1982 (talk) 12:24, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: More micronation cruft. Clearly non-notable figure. Coverage is primarily about the micronation itself, with the subject only having passing mentions. Curbon7 (talk) 12:37, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You realise that almost each one of the references mention the guy in the title of the article? MicroSupporter (talk) 13:04, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Analyzing each of the eight sources currently in the article: (1) his profile on the fake government website, (2) passing mention, primarily about the micronation, (3) interview which provides no significant coverage about him, (4) Passing mention, primarily about the micronation, (5) Despite what the subheading suggests, the article barely even provides a passing mention of him, (6) Metro is an unreliable source, (7) Not bad, but still primarily about the micronation with only a couple biographical details, (8) Entirely about the micronation, subject barely even receives a passing mention. Curbon7 (talk) 13:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm seeing your analysis as WP:BIAS and WP:GASLIGHT due to your namecalling of the mans website (1). As for (2), there is a section on him. (3) has a section on him titled "Señorito presidente", (6) the article should be considered reliable as it is part of the news section of Metro. The rest you have described relatively accurately from what I can see. MicroSupporter (talk) 14:34, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strident commentary aside, (1) is a WP:PRIMARY source usable only within the narrow confines of WP:ABOUTSELF but not suitable for satisfying WP:NBASIC, and (2) clearly does not satisfy WP:SIGCOV. Even if the Metro were a suitable source for BLPs (it isn't) that would still only be one source. You need to show significant coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources to justify retaining this article. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 03:10, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the nominator and the source analysis by Curbon7, there is at most one rather questionable source here that potentially demonstrates notability, insufficient to pass WP:NBASIC or WP:NPOL, both of which require multiple substantial pieces of coverage. Everything else is primary sources, passing mentions, or stuff that has no business being around a BLP, like the WP:METRO. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 12:53, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This chap is only interesting in the wider (and still not very interesting) context of micronations and the Croatia-Serbia dispute. His publicity stunt has no real-world consequences and we do not need a Wikipedia page about him.
Nwhyte (talk) 20:59, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete more or less per source analysis by Curbon7. To be clear weak choice between deleting and redirecting, this clearly should not be retained. It's possible I missed something since my serbo-croation searches were aided by machine translation, but I don't see that as particularly likely nor is this a topic where offline sources with SIGCOV are likely to be available. As is a redirect could probably be justified; the problem is that the mention on the border dispute page is probably UNDUE, and so we'd just be kicking the can down the road to an inevitable RFD which would end up taking even more time to reach the same result. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 03:00, 13 May 2023 (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.