- 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. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 01:05, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
James-J Walsh
AfDs for this article:
- James-J Walsh ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable. A Labour Cllr who works for a students' union. Danielle1238 ( talk) 06:10, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 07:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 07:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep. He is in the "top 10 most influential LGBT people in the UK by The Independent newspaper's Pink List". Meets WP:GNG and since WP:NPOL does not supersede GNG, this is an obvious keep. Α Guy into Books™ § ( Message) - 07:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Meets GNG. Donald1659 ( talk) 00:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. WP:GNG is a measure of an article's sourceability, not of anything that the article says in its text. Of the nine sources here, six are primary or unreliable sources that cannot assist notability at all, and he isn't the subject of any of the three remaining reliable sources — two of them just glancingly namecheck his existence a single time in coverage of something else, and he's the bylined author, not the subject, of the third. This is not how a person gets over GNG. Bearcat ( talk) 06:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover (U) (T) (C) 17:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover (U) (T) (C) 17:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete being on one of the meriads of "top x number y people in z" lists does not make someone notable, especially since these are usually annaul lists. His actual level as a politician also does not make him notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 15:36, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric On leave 07:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric On leave 07:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - at a superficial first glance this looks like an obvious keep. However, a deeper analysis has led me to opt for delete.
- The article lists nine sources. Let's evaluate each of them in terms of how they satisfy notability guidelines.
- ...is from the BBC, which is a reliable source. However, it only mentions Walsh in passing and does not indicate his contributions to the LGBT community which led to him receiving this accolade - if you can call it that.
- ...is similarly just a passing mention that just states he is on the list.
- ...is an affiliated source which confers no notability whatsoever. Notability is established by independent, reliable sources.
- ...is inaccessible.
- ...gives him the most coverage of all of the sources but is still woefully short of establishing notability and merely quotes Walsh on a certain topic and then carries on.
- ...is LinkedIn which does not give any notability.
- ...is a two-word quote on a blog from Walsh on a standalone issue.
- ...was written by Walsh himself, again failing the independent source clause.
- ...is inaccessible.
- His inclusion on a list which has gained media attention does not mean he inherits notability from the list.
- For what it's worth, it could be argued that this is a one-event case as all the coverage came around the time of legalisation of gay marriage - an argument I myself would not consider to be particularly pressing given the extended source rebuttal I have provided.
- Furthermore, his political position alone is a failure of politician notability guidelines so inclusion on that criterion is out as well.
- DrStrauss talk 12:51, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Per the compelling arguments of DrStrauss and Bearcat. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 14:30, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete not only as per DrStrauss and Bearcat, but also because with political activists and minor politicians, I like to see at least one profile in an independent source, preferably by a journalist in a widely recognized publication; here, however, the closest we get to an article about him is his linked-in profile and a post on teh organization of a political activism organization. Although it may merely be WP:TOOSOON, Walsh's notability is not validated by WP:SIGCOV. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 19:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 01:05, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
James-J Walsh
AfDs for this article:
- James-J Walsh ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable. A Labour Cllr who works for a students' union. Danielle1238 ( talk) 06:10, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 07:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 07:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep. He is in the "top 10 most influential LGBT people in the UK by The Independent newspaper's Pink List". Meets WP:GNG and since WP:NPOL does not supersede GNG, this is an obvious keep. Α Guy into Books™ § ( Message) - 07:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Meets GNG. Donald1659 ( talk) 00:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. WP:GNG is a measure of an article's sourceability, not of anything that the article says in its text. Of the nine sources here, six are primary or unreliable sources that cannot assist notability at all, and he isn't the subject of any of the three remaining reliable sources — two of them just glancingly namecheck his existence a single time in coverage of something else, and he's the bylined author, not the subject, of the third. This is not how a person gets over GNG. Bearcat ( talk) 06:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover (U) (T) (C) 17:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover (U) (T) (C) 17:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete being on one of the meriads of "top x number y people in z" lists does not make someone notable, especially since these are usually annaul lists. His actual level as a politician also does not make him notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 15:36, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric On leave 07:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric On leave 07:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - at a superficial first glance this looks like an obvious keep. However, a deeper analysis has led me to opt for delete.
- The article lists nine sources. Let's evaluate each of them in terms of how they satisfy notability guidelines.
- ...is from the BBC, which is a reliable source. However, it only mentions Walsh in passing and does not indicate his contributions to the LGBT community which led to him receiving this accolade - if you can call it that.
- ...is similarly just a passing mention that just states he is on the list.
- ...is an affiliated source which confers no notability whatsoever. Notability is established by independent, reliable sources.
- ...is inaccessible.
- ...gives him the most coverage of all of the sources but is still woefully short of establishing notability and merely quotes Walsh on a certain topic and then carries on.
- ...is LinkedIn which does not give any notability.
- ...is a two-word quote on a blog from Walsh on a standalone issue.
- ...was written by Walsh himself, again failing the independent source clause.
- ...is inaccessible.
- His inclusion on a list which has gained media attention does not mean he inherits notability from the list.
- For what it's worth, it could be argued that this is a one-event case as all the coverage came around the time of legalisation of gay marriage - an argument I myself would not consider to be particularly pressing given the extended source rebuttal I have provided.
- Furthermore, his political position alone is a failure of politician notability guidelines so inclusion on that criterion is out as well.
- DrStrauss talk 12:51, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Per the compelling arguments of DrStrauss and Bearcat. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 14:30, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete not only as per DrStrauss and Bearcat, but also because with political activists and minor politicians, I like to see at least one profile in an independent source, preferably by a journalist in a widely recognized publication; here, however, the closest we get to an article about him is his linked-in profile and a post on teh organization of a political activism organization. Although it may merely be WP:TOOSOON, Walsh's notability is not validated by WP:SIGCOV. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 19:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- 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.