Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eddie Pence

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. WP:GNG requires that the topic of an article have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of that subject: and any source that counts toward such coverage needs to meet all those criteria, per WP:SIGCOV. This is a fairly basic application of notability policy, so I'm not sure why it's being challenged the way it is in this discussion. As such, there's clear consensus that notability is not currently demonstrated. Like the final relister, I see a clear consensus to delete; unlike said admin, I'm unwilling to draftify unless someone explicitly commits to working on a draft, which I haven't yet seen, but I would willingly provide a copy to someone who does so. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:55, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Pence[edit]

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

Eddie Pence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unclear notability for this individual. Was mentioned at Just For Laughs in 2004 as a person to watch, but nothing of note since then. Gsearch is straight to social media, few if any critical discussions of the person or his work. Oaktree b (talk) 04:12, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A very clear Keep. Mr. Pence is a verifiably noted broadcaster, podcaster, filmmaker, and comedian. Mattwatterworth (talk) 18:33, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as author. As to the two points made 1. That there is "nothing since" is plainly untrue just by reading the article. 2. Google does not return all sources nor is "critical discussion" a prerequisite for notability. The article is brand new: you have to give people some chance to see it and improve. There are already enough cited secondary sources to show this is not a trivial person. He has had a daily international audience in the thousands for over 5 years; small, but hardly insignificant enough to delete immediately. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:03, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We need notability when the article is created, we can't park it until something happens. Oaktree b (talk) 14:57, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think GNG is clearly met *now*, by the numerous secondary sources listed. Is true the aren't a mountain of results when you Google, but that's not the standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB91:162C:E437:AD2:2951:6721:CE8F (talk) 21:21, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well I didn't see any we can use, can you share some for the group? Oaktree b (talk) 00:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, there are many online citations in the article to independent reliable sources with significant focus on the target. I think you need to refamiliarize yourself with GNG, as you are hewing too close to the letter and not the spirit of notability. This is objectively a notable person, and the article is not being used as a form of self-promotion. It is important to use AfD to prevent WP from being used for nefarious, non-encyclopedic purposes. This is very clearly not the case here. WP is better served by the article's inclusion than its deletion. Further there is not a good target for merging. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:35, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The page has 13 references/citations. Why is it still being considered for deletion? Mattwatterworth (talk) 08:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
20 now. GreatCaesarsGhost 00:48, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where you at @Oaktree b? Mattwatterworth (talk) 17:54, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm here. I've not reviewed the dozen sources you've added; if time allows, I'll review later. Oaktree b (talk) 19:38, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • GreatCaesarsGhost, for ease of assessment by other editors, which three sources, please no more, do you believe show notability? Valereee (talk) 19:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to once again ask for some citation of actual policy I can respond to. There is no 3 source rule; in fact a higher volume of diverse sources is a greater measure of notability. I could point to three sources, and one could say "this one is less reliable, this one is less independent, this one is more indirect coverage" but this ignores the baseline notion that any deficiencies in one source can be compensated for with another. These sources also serve to endorse the WP:ENT qualifier for making "prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment" in this case podcasting. The target has appeared on several thousand episodes of many different highly visible programs, and I don't believe any one source exists that would tend to cover this kind of contribution. I simply fail to understand what possible purpose exists in AfDing a 10 hour old article with double digits references spanning more than a decade. GreatCaesarsGhost 22:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Quality of references is far more important than quantity. Phil Bridger (talk) 05:37, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's absolutely true. But its not just quantity I'm pointing to, it's a diversity of sources and sustained mentions over a long period of time. It indicates that a target was not simply a person who is known in niche circles or for a single event that was replicated in multiple sources. The totality of references here demonstrates notability in a way that no single reference does. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:54, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gsearch is straight to social media, facebook, youtube, tiktok. Those are social media and the first things that pop up in a search, I'm not sure why you think otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 10:39, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GreatCaesarsGhost:, There is no "three source" requirement, but naming three sources that you believe to establish notability makes it easier for other editors sot hey don't have to go through absolutely everything to prove lack of notability. Doing something like "Eddie grew up in Virginia."[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] when the high volume of diverse sources each verify this uncontroversial is meaningless in elevating notability if these sources don't have informational value beyond corroborating he grew up there. That's called reference bombing, a tactic commonly employed by public relations editors to make non-notable things look notable.Graywalls (talk) 03:57, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting just to provide a little extra time for the article creator to respond to request here to provide that all important 3 sources. For the newcomers, merely stating that someone is important is not a good argument to make to cause Wikipedia to Keep an article. We rely on reliable sources that establish notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:38, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask what policy is being invoked with this reference to "all important 3 sources"? I've been around awhile but only dabbled in AfD, but I've never seen this invoked before now. And in any case, any person weighing in here should read the article themselves and review the sources. And I still do not see one single delete vote subsequent to the nomination. If I (and I'm not sure why as the creator I have any particular responsibility here to make the case, beyond my own interest in not seeing my work go for naught) am to respond to an argument in favor of deletion, someone needs to present the prima facie case for deletion. The only comments made in support of delete are "Was mentioned at Just For Laughs in 2004 as a person to watch, but nothing of note since" which is demonstrably false, and "Gsearch is straight to social media" which is an absurd and non-existent standard for significance. I actually set up a google alert for this target, which immediately brought in RSes that do not show in the standard search. Google has its own purposes in search design that have nothing to do with our interest here. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:51, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a great point and as far as I can tell it's just @Oaktree b making the case for deletion (though you're correct that even they haven't specifically called for deletion). They have said "if time allows, I'll review later." It seems that this user has lost interest in this discussion. I don't know if @Oaktree b was the user who flagged it for deletion but it seems irresponsible to do so, then not respond to the comments and sources, leaving things in limbo here. Mattwatterworth (talk) 02:23, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the article creator though, I've nominated it for deletion. Oaktree b (talk) 10:35, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bring your three sources and I'll take a look. Oaktree b (talk) 10:36, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of what you've added is acceptable for notability, TV Guide is just a list, the rest talk about him in passing. We need articles about the individual, not simply mentioning him. You don't have quality sources discussing the individual at length. Oaktree b (talk) 10:38, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you are intending to cite the "Significant coverage" criteria here, but are explicitly contradicting it with "We need articles about the individual." Rather, it says SC "is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." The SLO, Seattle Met, and Paulick Report all clearly meet this standard. As does TV Guide - there is zero reason to exclude it as being "just a list." Again, I acknowledge that the target is not an exceptionally famous person, and if you start with a presumption that a questionable case is not notable, then you will find a way to fail him on every criteria. But if you actually read GNG in concert with these sources, the answer is clear. I don't believe the intent of WP:N is to exclude people like him. It says that WP is to "avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics. Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice". It is very difficult for me to see inclusion of this target as indiscriminate, or him as "unworthy of notice" given the breadth and duration of mention in reliable sources. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:16, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
TV guide is two photos of his dvd covers and some text, it's not a useful source. The rest of the sourcing is as scant as this. Mentions, yes, trivial, also yes. We don't have a feature article about the individual, simply confirmation he works. This is not acceptable for Wiki. Oaktree b (talk) 12:51, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The rest of the sourcing is as scant as this. Mentions, yes, trivial, also yes. Again, I invite you to look at the example WP:GNG provides for trivial: ""In high school, {Bill Clinton} was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band." The trivial distinction is not based on how brief the coverage is or what portion of an article focuses on them, it is whether they are directly talking about a subject vs. just mentioning them casually while discussing something else. For example, The Hollywood Reporter and Variety mentions are certainly trivial, as they only mention Pence in regards to what Ralph Garman is doing (BTW, the mention of Garman himself is not trivial, even though he is not the subject of the article). But the SLO article has 8 paragraphs focused on Pence. Pence is the main subject of the Voyage LA and Ultimate Rabbit articles. The Paulick report has 3 lines about Pence. None of these are trivial mentions. GreatCaesarsGhost 20:29, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but Clinton has other stuff upon which to build an article, you're hanging notability on a TVGuide listing. Oaktree b (talk) 00:36, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Does not have to be the main topic, yes, but should be at least mentioned in the article. Some below don't even mention this person... Oaktree b (talk) 12:52, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N instructs us that "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. Wikipedia's concept of notability applies this basic standard to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics." Everything that comes after is an attempt to implement this idea, not subvert it. If you honestly believe after reviewing this article that there are "no reliable, independent sources" or that its inclusion would be "indiscriminate" then by all means vote to delete. But don't ignore the spirit of notability while splitting hairs on the letter. I would invite everyone to visit the case of Stubbs the cat. While Stubbs never did anything of consequence in his whole life (even by the lesser standards one might apply to a cat), he nevertheless has an article on WP. This is because Stubbs' owner told a silly lie about Stubbs as a joke, and this lie was repeated by many so-called reliable sources. Of course, the reliable sources were not being credulous, but they were subverting the very notion of "reliable" sources: they were printing lies! But that didn't matter when Stubbs became the subject of a very lively AfD. "Coverage in RS = notability!" the pedants cried. GreatCaesarsGhost 21:18, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stubbs has an entire article in Time magazine. You point me to one here for this fellow. That's the issue. Oaktree b (talk) 00:37, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Extensive coverage in RS, we use the three best sources here in AfD as needed. It's convention, if you don't agree, you can create a discussion about it over at the source board. Oaktree b (talk) 00:40, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • As promised, source assessment table.
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
http://voyagela.com/interview/meet-eddie-pence-hollywood/ No Interview Yes Yes is a long interview ✘ No
https://account.sanluisobispo.com/paywall/subscriber-only?resume=63864327&intcid=ab_archive No interview, primary Yes news media, seems RS No Out of ~300 words of SICOV, ~100 are secondary reporting, the rest is interview ✘ No
https://www.seattlemet.com/arts-and-culture/2010/11/round-1-of-seattle-comedy-competition-november-2010 Yes review of a comedy event ~ No small, brief mention ✘ No
https://www.tvguide.com/celebrities/eddie-pence/credits/3030404200/ Yes TV Guide is RS Yes TV Guide is RS No brief photo captions after images of DVD covers ✘ No
https://paulickreport.com/news/people/santa-anitas-horn-blower-jay-cohen-to-host-first-ever-thats-a-stretch-comedy-show/ Yes has a by-line Yes Horse industry publication No mentioned in one line as a performer, article is about a different thing all together ✘ No
https://music.apple.com/us/artist/eddie-pence/279065236 ~ Apple music listing No Apple music is not a RS No playlist of his performances ✘ No
https://shorefire.com/releases/entry/comedy-dynamics-to-release-eddie-pence-the-unspecial No Press release No Press releases are not RS Yes Talks about the individual ✘ No
https://theultimaterabbit.com/2020/10/24/eddie-pence-the-unspecial-comedy-special-is-endlessly-funny/ ? No byline ? Not listed as a RS, no author stated Yes Talks about his comedy event ? Unknown
https://variety.com/2020/music/news/kevin-and-bean-allie-mackay-gene-baxter-podcast-1234801967/ Yes Variety is a RS Yes Variety is RS No Is about two altogether different people! ✘ No
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/music-news/kroqs-kevin-ryder-says-entire-morning-show-team-was-fired-1285185/ Yes Hollywood Reporter is RS Yes RS About another individual getting fired. ? Unknown
https://www.ocregister.com/2015/04/05/big-personalities-get-big-laughs-at-april-foolishness/ Yes Orange County Register is a RS ? paywalled ? paywalled, likely no as it mentions a comedy event, not solely about this individual ? Unknown
https://www.latalkradio.com/content/wake-hollywood Yes Not published by this individual A podcast is not a RS No Article is a bio for a different individual alltogether. ✘ No
https://nypost.com/2021/01/19/jenn-sterger-speaks-out-on-mets-jared-porter-sexting-scandal/ Yes Not written by an associate of the individual No New York Post is not a RS No Does not mention, nor talk about the comic being discussed ✘ No
https://krod.com/cody-deckers-father-to-star-in-daddys-drunk-movie-reviews/ Yes ESPN radio is RS and independent Yes ESPN is RS Article about a different individual event alltogether ? Unknown
https://thedadlands.io/father-time/eddie-pence/ No Subject is being interviewed on a podcast No Podcast is a non-RS Yes Individual talks aobut himself ✘ No
https://www.slashfilm.com/731218/the-15-best-documentaries-you-can-watch-on-netflix-right-now/ ? Unclear ? Unclear reliability Talks about Star Wars film trailers, not about this person ? Unknown
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_get_lost_losers Yes not written by the subject No rotten tomatoes is RS, but can only be used to source reviews as RS No Listing of varisou aspects of the comedy special ✘ No
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm2275851/ ? IMdB is crowd sourced, could be edited by anyone No We don't consider IMdB ~ Talks about the special ✘ No
https://tv.apple.com/us/movie/eddie-pence-thespecial-comedy-special/umc.cmc.2ggmv08c0l0ullxwjb86kkf4k Yes Apple is not involved with the comedian No listings on a streaming service are not to be used as RS Yes Talks aobut the comedy special ✘ No
https://shoutoutla.com/meet-tracey-pence-realtor-ceo-real-estate-in-focus/ Yes is about an entirely different person ? appears to have a byline Is NOT about the comedian, written by his wife? She talks about other things and thanks him, once. ? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
    • I'm not sure what we're using for GNG, but NOTHING IN THE TABLE ABOVE CAN BE USED. Some articles do NOT EVEN mention the comedian. I'm rather bothered by the fact that we've used sources that don't event talk about he person, hoping to prove notability; the article about the realtor in Los Angeles in particular. Please discuss. Oaktree b (talk) 01:20, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1) You are conflating the idea of independence as it pertains to WP:GNG with WP:V. When a reliable source chooses to keep factual statements in the voice of a subject (rather than using the voice of the publication), it can be understood that those statements are not subject to the ordinary editorial review of the publication, and thus may not meet WP:V. But independence for the purposes of notability is an entirely different thing. It means that an entity choosing to publish material on a subject has no connection to him, and is doing so for its ordinary journalistic purposes. The article could be little more that a press release and it would still be independent because the RS is choosing to use space to promote the subject. 2) An article being paywalled does not mean it cannot be used for GNG. GNG can be established by books and periodicals with zero online replication. Just because you cannot personally look at it (and I don't see why; I encounter no paywall for these sources) doesn't mean it can be rejected out of hand. 3) Finally, you have chosen to reject on SC grounds every single article where Pence is not the direct subject, which clearly indicates you do not understand this policy. There is a broad range of coverage between being the direct subject and being mentioned trivially. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:42, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources identified discuss this individual at length. There is multiple coverage, yes, V is covered. But we need sourcing about him, what you've given is simple name drops. I understand this police and have participated in over 1000 AfD discussions at this point. Regardless, feel free to introduce your own source assessment table so we can discuss the sources. I'm happy to help you do so. Alternatively, please point out which of the sources above are sig coverage of the person; none are that I can see. Oaktree b (talk) 00:29, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mattwatterworth What say you? Anything?Oaktree b (talk) 00:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting and those advocating Keep would do well to discuss, specifically, the source analysis and not talk broadly about policy, focus on this article not other articles about cats. It might help establish notability if Wikipedia had an article about this popular podcast he's a cohost of but we don't. But I mostly want to encourage uninvolved editors to voice their opinion on what should happen with this article. Policy discussions on GNG and SIGCOV can continue elsewhere.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:15, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Oaktree b's excellent source assessment table seems accurate for all the sources used in the article—it's particularly notable that large portions of the sources are about other people and only mention Pence in passing. There's no independent significant coverage of Pence presented and he fails NACTOR. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 06:09, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's quite obvious from Oaktree b's fantastic source assessment table that none of the sources qualify for notability, as Dylnuge said above, most of the sources are passing mentions, and there is no independent significant coverage of Pence. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 08:22, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify or Weak delete. Relying on Oaktree b's table's excellent notes, I am evaluating whether we could build up WP:BASIC from the sources presented. To start building BASIC, I'm looking by color for either at least 1 Green tickYGreen tickYGreen tickY; or a good collection of Green tickYGreen tickYOrange tickY or Orange tickYGreen tickYOrange tickY or Green tickYOrange tickYOrange tickY without severe issues; (or maybe even a lot of Green tickYGreen tickYRed XN with short-but-nontrivial mentions or a lot of Red XNGreen tickYGreen tickY interviews from which we could extract factual data not dependent on the interview). Unfortunately, based on this table, we don't have the sources to create an NPOV, verifiable article without original research. "online celebrity" types like podcast hosts or streamers often don't get a lot of independent, reliable, significant coverage in the current media landscape. At this point in the discussion, rather than bringing more low quality sources, I would encourage searching for one Green tickYGreen tickYGreen tickY source. —siroχo 08:44, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SLO and Voyage LA meet all three. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:01, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b I was able to view the SLO piece, maybe this link helps [1]. Out of ~300 words of SICOV, ~100 are secondary reporting, the rest is interview, if you want to update the table. —siroχo 21:11, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will, thank you. Oaktree b (talk) 21:30, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with the source review having looked over either the best or the most unknown sources myself, and the article doesn't meet WP:GNG at this time. It's all passing mentions. SportingFlyer T·C 14:16, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The SLO has 8 paragraphs, and the Voyage LA is 100% on him. They are not all passing. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:01, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Voyage LA is an interview, which unfortunately isn't a secondary source for the purposes of GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 19:52, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Voyage LA is an interview, it's a primary source. Oaktree b (talk) 19:53, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SLO appears to be RS, but he talks about himself; out of 300 words, 100 works are about him. Not sigcov by any stretch. Oaktree b (talk) 21:38, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've updated my !vote above to "draftify or weak delete". The SLO Tribune source helps, but without at least a few more similar ones (or again, at least 1 Green tickYGreen tickYGreen tickY source) its pretty thin. It may be WP:TOOSOON or it may just take more time to find sources, so a draft seems like a good way to go forwards. Are any keep proponents willing to look after a draft, as that would give that option more weight. —siroχo 23:32, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As the primary contributor, I would certainly be willing to look after a draft to keep my work from going for naught. Are there additional guidelines somewhere for when to promote? How many more "three check" references are needed? GreatCaesarsGhost 12:09, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a guideline we ask for three here at AfD; anything more than two helps to be honest. If you can find critical reviews of any one of his performances in the likes of Variety, TV Guide, Common Sense Media, that helps. Extensive reviews, not one liners like we have now. Oaktree b (talk) 20:24, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ATD-I would be the guideline I think, it says AFC is optional. The WP:BASIC notability guidelines for biographies are a bit flexible. Oaktree's suggestion would be a relatively non-controversial for the majority of editors who participate in these discussions. In my personal assessment, given what we already have, we could meet WP:BASIC with 1 further secondary, independent, reliable source with significant coverage about the subject. Oaktree, myself, and others might have slightly different takes on this. —siroχo 20:52, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can someone explain the policy-based rationale for excluding interviews from the "independent" qualifier? GNG says "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." It further clarifies that "'Independent of the subject' excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent". This rather clearly indicates that "independent of the subject" is a quality of the publishing source, not the nature of the coverage. No one is interviewing me, because I am not notable. If the New York Times chose to publish an interview with me, that would be an indication that I am notable. This is explicitly what GNG is saying. You could certainly make an argument that statements within the interview are not completely reliable, but that doesn't speak to notability. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    People have different approaches on this. My personal take is that anything attributed to the subject from an interview the author had with the subject is not independent. However, attributed statements that came from other sources are independent, as the secondary source is providing coverage of the statement. Background information (that is not attributed to the subject) in a generally reliable source can be assumed to be independent.
    For example, from this discussion, by my reckoning, the VoyageLA source is not independent, but the SLO Tribune source has about 100 words of independent coverage. —siroχo 21:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, We are conflating verifiability of individual statements with independence of the publishing source. You used the adjective "independent" to modify "anything attributed to the subject", "attributed statements" and "background information". Independent for the purposes of GNG is referring to the source, not the nature of the coverage. "reliable sources that are independent of the subject" i.e. an interview at EddiePence.com is not independent of the artist and therefore would not convey notability. But a long form interview in the New York Times would clearly convey notability, because you must be notable for them to choose to cover you. This is what GNG is talking about: the choice of someone to talk about you is the bedrock of notability. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:29, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This specific discussion has happened many times on Wikipedia and hinges on where individual editors draw the line between primary and secondary sources. At least one essay (WP:INTERVIEWS) suggests The general rule is that any statements made by interviewees about themselves, their activities, or anything they are connected to is considered to have come from a primary source and is also non-independent material.
    At the very least we can recognize that there's not a firm consensus on where the line is between a primary source and secondary source for news articles. —siroχo 21:14, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly surpasses the educational value of Lyman Smith (American football) or Bedri Böke (among many others who aren't even discussed by a single person, much less in a manner suggesting notability). InedibleHulk (talk) 10:00, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently the good folks who trawl AfD have not received the memo on WP:BURO. This discussion makes the debates at ITN/C seem reasonable. GreatCaesarsGhost 20:21, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm surprised to see an OTHERSTUFF argument from such an experienced editor. This isn't very helpful. Actualcpscm (talk) 13:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I think there is a consensus to Delete this article given the source analysis table but there is also a suggestion to Draftify. This is a valid ATD and I want to see if this has support before closing this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:33, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify. Removal from mainspace is appropriate per the source analysis; what I have double-checked seems like sound analysis to me. My main concern with draftification is that it will be very difficult to write anything about this individual that complies with WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, unless we have missed some appropriate sources in this discussion. It's tricky to support draftification when a policy-compliant article, which is the eventual goal of draftification, seems so unlikely to emerge. But let's give it a chance. Actualcpscm (talk) 13:16, 6 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eddie_Pence&oldid=1169041316"