Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Troy Trepanier

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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Troy Trepanier[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)

The article only provides one source for the subject’s biography, which is a web article from HotRod.com. This source may not be considered reliable or independent, as it is a website that focuses on automotive topics and may have a conflict of interest or bias towards the subject. The article does not provide any other sources that cover the subject’s life, career, achievements, awards, or impact. Therefore, the article may not show that the subject meets the notability criteria for people. DarklarkOxs (talk) 21:07, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DarklarkOxs (talk) 21:07, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:SK#2 as a bad faith revenge nomination. The deletion rationale also appears to have been written by ChatGPT. 192.76.8.94 (talk) 21:09, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Striking as an editor in good standing has voted delete. 192.76.8.94 (talk) 21:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep per 192.76.8.94, as ZeroGPT detects the text as being 93.41% likely to be AI generated. In addition, nom is currently softblocked for talk page vandalism.
WhichUser AmI 21:19, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was not blocked for talkpage vandalisim, I was falsly blocked for asking someone something on their talkpage DarklarkOxs (talk) 21:20, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no revenge/bad faith, I literily clicked random article and saw this was poorly sourced. DarklarkOxs (talk) 21:19, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I was able to find several sources which establish reliability about this individual, and believe the article could be expanded upon as such. See |1 |2 |3 |4 WhichUser AmI 21:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The second and third refs returned 404 errors. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:52, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@A. B. I've fixed the links. WhichUserAmI had made a mistake in the wiki markup and accidentally added an extra pipe character to the end of the urls [1].

@WhichUserAmI You only need to use a pipe character when making internal links. for external links you use a space to separate the url from the text you want the link to display. 192.76.8.94 (talk) 22:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ or at least pause this one for consideration. The nom is apparently in bad faith, but this is a pretty sparse BLP that I'd like to investigate further. As it stands at the moment, the sourcing is not sufficient. Note that this renders Speedy Keep criteria #2 moot. Zaathras (talk) 21:18, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on its merits since speedy keep is no longer an option. This person and their creations seem to have received multiple full length pieces of coverage in reliable sources, see [2] [3] [4], for example. 192.76.8.94 (talk) 21:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
# 1 is essentially the blogger portion of a car sale website, # 2 is an article about the car, and only mentions the person in passing, # 3 is the lone source already cited in the article. If one can even call a stub an article. Zaathras (talk) 22:06, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first source doesn't appear to be a blog to me. It appears to employ proper editorial staff, and most the writers I checked appear to have experience writing for decent publications or other reporting experience. The stuff submitted by readers is clearly marked up as such and it attributed to "ClassicCars.com Guest Contributor", e.g. [5]. The author of the piece I linked, Larry Edsall, spent a decade as an editor of AutoWeek and appears to have published more than a dozen books - it's not like it's some random person writing on blogger.

Yes, the second article is about a car he built. I don't think we have a standalone notability criteria for hotrod builders, but the notability criteria for creative persons, WP:CREATIVE, includes the person's work receiving critical attention as an indicator of notability. 192.76.8.94 (talk) 22:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Illinois. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural speedy keep due to bad faith nomination. No prejudice to anybody looking into it further and renominating it properly if they think that is justified. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator note. I closed as speedy keep another disruptive nomination by the OP, but chose to leave this one open. Recommend it proceed with no weight given to the OP given subsequent delete commentary. Courcelles (talk) 23:06, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not terribly well-sourced, but the one source given, Hot Rod magazine, appears to be an RS as part of the Motor Trend stable/ Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:09, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Agreed with all editors involved. CastJared (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I find more sources about the vehicles he builds rather than him [6], [7]. I guess he's notable, individual cars rarely are, so the notability goes to the builder. Oaktree b (talk) 00:27, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We're now up to 8 references, many of which are more about the cars rather than the man, and the article body is all of 3 choppy sentences. Is this about proving a point? Because it doesn't seem like an actual biographical article is being written here. Zaathras (talk) 00:40, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
many of which are more about the cars rather than the man Yes, I addressed this above. I think the most appropriate notability guideline to apply here is WP:CREATIVE, which states a person in a creative profession is notable if The person's work (or works) has: ... (c) won significant critical attention. His car builds have received coverage in motoring related journalism and have won awards, this implies he has received critical attention and is therefore notable.

the article body is all of 3 choppy sentences the content in or state of the article does not determine notability. WP:ARTN.

Is this about proving a point? Why have you immediately jumped to assumptions of bad faith? Once you voted delete I did a few searches and very quickly found multiple full length pieces of coverage of his work, implying he was notable, and accordingly provided a few example links while voting keep. 192.76.8.86 (talk) 01:07, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Yet no article improvement. Why is that? Zaathras (talk) 01:16, 24 May 2023 (UTC)~~ - moot. Zaathras (talk) 01:29, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because the state of the article is completely irrelevant to determining whether the subject of the article is notable (WP:ARTN)? Because notability is determined by what sourcing exists, not what is present in the article (WP:NEXIST)? Because Perfection is not required and Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. are part of the core editing policy (WP:IMPERFECT)? Because the point of AFD is to evaluate whether a topic is suitable for inclusion, not to improve pages (WP:NOTCLEANUP)? Because you have no right whatsoever to make demands on how other volunteers should spend their time (WP:NOTCOMPULSORY)? 192.76.8.86 (talk) 01:30, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment x2 As there appears to be no chance of deletion, I am striking the lone delete vote, i.e. mine, so that the inevitable will not be prolonged. The filer certainly nominated this article in bad faith, but circumstances have now devolved into the project being saddled with keeping a sub-par article. That is regrettable. Zaathras (talk) 01:28, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep - article has been improved, and now is a viable stub. Suggest we close this AfD soon. PhilKnight (talk) 21:21, 25 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.