Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Peters (blogger)

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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Peters (blogger)[edit]

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

This page needs to be revamped from scratch, beginning with its name, if it should exist at all. As several users have expressed, Thomas Peters does not meet the notability criteria for a living person. One of the sources ("The Catholic Club) only mention Peters and his blog in order to discredit Peters for having petty debates on his blog. This is a strike against his notability, not a credit towards it. Other sources are lesser known blogs with one comment or less on average (such as St. Michael Society), not showing significant coverage. Still others are not independent but are affiliates promoting Peters' blog (such as the Catholic Vote Action link, St. Michael Society link, etc.). This issue leads to a greater problem. If the page is to be rewritten -- and I'm not sure it should -- the page should be about Peters' blog itself (American Papist) with Peters maybe meriting a subsection and his name redirecting to the blog Wikipedia entry. Alternatively, the page could be deleted outright and recreated on a sister Wiki rather than Wikipedia. Darthoutis (talk) 14:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The persons notability is doubtful, and in any case the article name is wrong. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Rename, Rewrite A significant topic, but an article that should be about the blog, not the blogger. Carrite (talk) 15:58, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep . the references are enough to support the importance of the blog, but as he has done a few more things than the blog, the article should be on him. This is always a dilemma, and I think we should always incline to the person, about whom there is more likely to be additional importance in the future & so the opportunity to develop the article. 17:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I think this discussion would benefit from an evaluation of specific sources. I've already identified examples of the problematic sources, which either don't show significant coverage or are not independent sources but affiliates promoting Peters and his blog.Darthoutis (talk) 16:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that Peters' isolated appearances on a couple of cable news interviews are insufficient to meet Wikipedia's allowance for people likely to remain high profile. Although Wikipedia does grant notability to people with a short history of coverage, that liberty only applies under condition that the subject already has a high profile. Peters himself, nor his blog, has ever been the subject of any major news stories, and I'm not sure Peters' appearances as a consultant for a couple of cable TV interviews count as high profile. The more I think about this, the more I believe this page (whether about Peters or his blog) better belongs on a sister Wiki, which is more conducive to specialized subjects. If Peters or his blog ever does become notable for a general encyclopedia like Wikipedia, we can always recreate his page. That is what deletion review is for when "new significant information comes to light and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article." (see criterion #3 under "Principal purpose").Darthoutis (talk) 16:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia does not condone articles on bloggers. Not notable. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 00:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

I'm not sure if this guy is notable, but some bloggers certainly are: see Category:Bloggers. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 13:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agreed, a few TV appearances as a minor pundit do not constitute coverage of Peters, and therefore are not evidence of notability. I doubt the blog is notable either. -- Chonak (talk) 03:46, 12 July 2010 (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.