 | This discussion was subject to a
deletion review on 2017 March 3. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
- 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. Bishonen | talk 22:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Wayne Dupree
- Wayne Dupree ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Sources are either unreliable/selfpublished, not enough for notability, or only mention Wayne Dupree in passing. Business Insider article, Politico article, and Salon article only mention him in passing. WCBM, CNN, and MSNBC only have him on as a pundit for an episode. All others are primary sources that are either selfpublished, unreliable, or not enough for notability. (If anyone can find good, reliable, secondary sources, please add them to the article.) – 🐱? ( talk) (ping me!) 20:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
- Delete I've reviewed the sources present in the article as well as conducting my own searches for substantial independent coverage of the subject. I agree with the nomination that, at the moment, there is insufficient coverage to meet WP:BIO or WP:CREATIVE since my searches only turned up more brief mentions in reliable sources like these: [1] [2] [3]. SmartSE ( talk) 21:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Just added a New York Times citation to the article from August 2016 that quoted Dupree as it related to black America and the election. Cllgbksr ( talk) 22:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Added a Washington Post citation to the article from 2016. WaPo referred to Dupree as a "media figure". Cllgbksr ( talk) 23:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Created a Social Media section and moved the MIT election influencer citation there. Cllgbksr ( talk) 23:27, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
- I saw all of those. The issue is that none of these are direct coverage, which is what is needed for a page to be found as "notable". – 🐱? ( talk) (ping me!) 23:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
- Delete The new sources are still brief quotes and trivial mentions. What we need are a few articles that are about Dupree, not more articles on other subjects that happen to mention Dupree. - MrOllie ( talk) 17:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- Keep WP:Basic "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability;" WP says otherwise. There are enough multiple independent sources in this article- when combined - establish his notability. Cllgbksr ( talk) 18:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Your comment about me being only contributor is patently false. According to a tool provided by WP, 13 users have edited this article. I am not the only contributor. Cllgbksr ( talk) 12:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- I was wrong and careless, only checking the 50 most recent entries. However, your indignation is a red herring. Conservatively, you've made 70% of the edits, and you created the article. I also wanted to make absolutely sure that any Admin reviewing the debate knows your position. Tapered ( talk) 06:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
- Redirect This person gets coverage in reliable sources, but nothing dedicated. Most of the coverage is related Trump and his campaign, so redirect to Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 and/or United States presidential campaign, 2016. Tapered ( talk) 05:51, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
- Note: would require including mention of Dupree in the articles, if he's not there. Tapered ( talk) 05:53, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
- @
What cat?: I question your statement "WCBM, CNN, and MSNBC only have him on as a pundit for an episode". Question: How many times must someone appear on a national cable news network with millions of viewers - before that person is considered "notable"? Once, five times, twenty? The second that show airs and his name is displayed at the bottom of the screen - and millions see it - he is notable.
Cllgbksr (
talk) 14:11, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
- As many times as it takes for independent sources to decide that they're important and write an article about them (as opposed to an article mentioning them). Sometimes this happens right away, but plenty of journalists 'fly under the radar' for years. - MrOllie ( talk) 17:56, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
- @ MrOllie: Nice dodge. My point is his exposure being live on the air in front of millions of viewers, is the equivalent of an article dedicated solely to Dupree. Probably going to have to get an administrator involved and request a variance for this article. Cllgbksr ( talk) 19:04, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. I try to give these sort of articles the benefit of the doubt, but looking at the WP:RS content, the trivial mentions are insufficient to satisfy our notability criteria. Edwardx ( talk) 20:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
- @ Edwardx: @ MrOllie: There are 23 references for this article, 17 of which are secondary, reliable, independent sources (NY Times, WaPo, Business Insider, etc...)...five are RSBN & one for Spreaker for context. Let me remind everyone, Keep/Delete votes do not determine the outcome - whether this article is deleted. It is the debate. Per WP guidelines not all of the article has to be solely about the subject. Just found this article (yeah, I know it's Breitbart and that's a whole different debate as to whether it can be considered a "reliable source") but this article is not a "trivial mention". http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2014/04/01/wayne-dupree-texas-must-lead-the-conservative-movement/ Cllgbksr ( talk) 21:09, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been listed at WikiProject Conservatism: [4]. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 00:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
- Keep - Per the Findings of Cllgbksr Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 04:11, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Yoshiman6464 was canvassed by Cllgbksr, diff Edwardx ( talk) 11:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- Comment @ Edwardx: Nope, major fail EdwardX. Yoshiman6464 was not canvassed. That user has contributed multiple times to article which I considered substantial, and it's allowed for me to simply advise article was up for deletion under WP guidelines. My post to that user was neutral. Cllgbksr ( talk) 11:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Admins please note: User:Yoshiman6464 is a contributor the the article in question, notified selectively by User:Cllgbksr, creator and predominant editor of the article, who also added a "keep" to the debate. The only 2 keeps so far. Tapered ( talk) 06:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Admins please note:
User:Tapered seems to be obsessed with this article (i.e. wanting it to fail) due to multiple posts on this page and my talk page. Quick sweep of their contributions lean user may be pro-Clinton. Subject of this article Dupree, a black, conservative radio show host and political commentator, opposed Clinton in general election. Dupree is a former member of Democratic party and now a fierce critic of the party.
User:Tapered may have an ulterior motive wanting this article to be deleted, i.e. political censorship.
User:Tapered has also made a false statement on this talk page, that I was the sole contributor to article, when 13 users have edited it (still waiting on that apology). Admins also note Per WP: (re: votes
User:Tapered seems so infatuated with): "Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments."
WP:CLOSEAFD My post to
User:Yoshiman6464 as a contributor to article was that article was up for nomination for deletion, and was made only for the "opportunity to weigh in on the discussion."
Cllgbksr (
talk) 18:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
- It would be a good idea to knock off the personal characterizations used as a prelude. That's a diversionary tactic. Also, note that "false statement" imputes bad faith to a lazy, careless mistake. I'm no exemplar, but it's a good idea to assume good faith. You sent notifications to only 2 of the other contributors, and the wording of the notifications wasn't neutral. Again, if that's not canvassing, it's close. Further, you're posting heavily to an AfD discussion concerning an article you created, and to which you're the dominant contributor/editor. That's not very good form.
Tapered (
talk) 00:35, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- Only thing User:Tapered has said on this page I agree with is that he was "wrong and careless". This article stands on it's own merit regardless of who is primary contributor or how many edited it (13 users). 27 references, 21 of which are secondary and independent (New York Times, WaPo, Business Insider, etc..) The other 6 are for context (RSBN, Spreaker). If User:Tapered wants to talk about assuming good faith, someone should step up and suggest withdrawing this article from nomination for deletion, in light of the new articles that have been posted since last Thursday, the Breitbart article and today's Newsmax article are more than a trivial mention. A lot of clean up has been done on the article, references that were criticized as possibly being self-promotional have been removed. Cllgbksr ( talk) 02:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- It would be a good idea to knock off the personal characterizations used as a prelude. That's a diversionary tactic. Also, note that "false statement" imputes bad faith to a lazy, careless mistake. I'm no exemplar, but it's a good idea to assume good faith. You sent notifications to only 2 of the other contributors, and the wording of the notifications wasn't neutral. Again, if that's not canvassing, it's close. Further, you're posting heavily to an AfD discussion concerning an article you created, and to which you're the dominant contributor/editor. That's not very good form.
Tapered (
talk) 00:35, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Important update @ What cat?: Dupree made Newsmax list today of "50 Most Influential African-American Republicans" [5]. Article/reference has been added to the WP article and is number one reference in lede. Cllgbksr ( talk) 19:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC) Dupree was on MSNBC this morning, Stephanie Ruhle segment, link to video will be added to article once available. [6] Cllgbksr ( talk) 17:30, 24 February 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.
| This discussion was subject to a
deletion review on 2017 March 3. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
- 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. Bishonen | talk 22:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Wayne Dupree
- Wayne Dupree ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Sources are either unreliable/selfpublished, not enough for notability, or only mention Wayne Dupree in passing. Business Insider article, Politico article, and Salon article only mention him in passing. WCBM, CNN, and MSNBC only have him on as a pundit for an episode. All others are primary sources that are either selfpublished, unreliable, or not enough for notability. (If anyone can find good, reliable, secondary sources, please add them to the article.) – 🐱? ( talk) (ping me!) 20:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
- Delete I've reviewed the sources present in the article as well as conducting my own searches for substantial independent coverage of the subject. I agree with the nomination that, at the moment, there is insufficient coverage to meet WP:BIO or WP:CREATIVE since my searches only turned up more brief mentions in reliable sources like these: [1] [2] [3]. SmartSE ( talk) 21:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Just added a New York Times citation to the article from August 2016 that quoted Dupree as it related to black America and the election. Cllgbksr ( talk) 22:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Added a Washington Post citation to the article from 2016. WaPo referred to Dupree as a "media figure". Cllgbksr ( talk) 23:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Created a Social Media section and moved the MIT election influencer citation there. Cllgbksr ( talk) 23:27, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
- I saw all of those. The issue is that none of these are direct coverage, which is what is needed for a page to be found as "notable". – 🐱? ( talk) (ping me!) 23:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
- Delete The new sources are still brief quotes and trivial mentions. What we need are a few articles that are about Dupree, not more articles on other subjects that happen to mention Dupree. - MrOllie ( talk) 17:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- Keep WP:Basic "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability;" WP says otherwise. There are enough multiple independent sources in this article- when combined - establish his notability. Cllgbksr ( talk) 18:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Your comment about me being only contributor is patently false. According to a tool provided by WP, 13 users have edited this article. I am not the only contributor. Cllgbksr ( talk) 12:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- I was wrong and careless, only checking the 50 most recent entries. However, your indignation is a red herring. Conservatively, you've made 70% of the edits, and you created the article. I also wanted to make absolutely sure that any Admin reviewing the debate knows your position. Tapered ( talk) 06:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
- Redirect This person gets coverage in reliable sources, but nothing dedicated. Most of the coverage is related Trump and his campaign, so redirect to Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 and/or United States presidential campaign, 2016. Tapered ( talk) 05:51, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
- Note: would require including mention of Dupree in the articles, if he's not there. Tapered ( talk) 05:53, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
- @
What cat?: I question your statement "WCBM, CNN, and MSNBC only have him on as a pundit for an episode". Question: How many times must someone appear on a national cable news network with millions of viewers - before that person is considered "notable"? Once, five times, twenty? The second that show airs and his name is displayed at the bottom of the screen - and millions see it - he is notable.
Cllgbksr (
talk) 14:11, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
- As many times as it takes for independent sources to decide that they're important and write an article about them (as opposed to an article mentioning them). Sometimes this happens right away, but plenty of journalists 'fly under the radar' for years. - MrOllie ( talk) 17:56, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
- @ MrOllie: Nice dodge. My point is his exposure being live on the air in front of millions of viewers, is the equivalent of an article dedicated solely to Dupree. Probably going to have to get an administrator involved and request a variance for this article. Cllgbksr ( talk) 19:04, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. I try to give these sort of articles the benefit of the doubt, but looking at the WP:RS content, the trivial mentions are insufficient to satisfy our notability criteria. Edwardx ( talk) 20:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
- @ Edwardx: @ MrOllie: There are 23 references for this article, 17 of which are secondary, reliable, independent sources (NY Times, WaPo, Business Insider, etc...)...five are RSBN & one for Spreaker for context. Let me remind everyone, Keep/Delete votes do not determine the outcome - whether this article is deleted. It is the debate. Per WP guidelines not all of the article has to be solely about the subject. Just found this article (yeah, I know it's Breitbart and that's a whole different debate as to whether it can be considered a "reliable source") but this article is not a "trivial mention". http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2014/04/01/wayne-dupree-texas-must-lead-the-conservative-movement/ Cllgbksr ( talk) 21:09, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been listed at WikiProject Conservatism: [4]. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 00:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
- Keep - Per the Findings of Cllgbksr Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 04:11, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Yoshiman6464 was canvassed by Cllgbksr, diff Edwardx ( talk) 11:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- Comment @ Edwardx: Nope, major fail EdwardX. Yoshiman6464 was not canvassed. That user has contributed multiple times to article which I considered substantial, and it's allowed for me to simply advise article was up for deletion under WP guidelines. My post to that user was neutral. Cllgbksr ( talk) 11:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Admins please note: User:Yoshiman6464 is a contributor the the article in question, notified selectively by User:Cllgbksr, creator and predominant editor of the article, who also added a "keep" to the debate. The only 2 keeps so far. Tapered ( talk) 06:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Admins please note:
User:Tapered seems to be obsessed with this article (i.e. wanting it to fail) due to multiple posts on this page and my talk page. Quick sweep of their contributions lean user may be pro-Clinton. Subject of this article Dupree, a black, conservative radio show host and political commentator, opposed Clinton in general election. Dupree is a former member of Democratic party and now a fierce critic of the party.
User:Tapered may have an ulterior motive wanting this article to be deleted, i.e. political censorship.
User:Tapered has also made a false statement on this talk page, that I was the sole contributor to article, when 13 users have edited it (still waiting on that apology). Admins also note Per WP: (re: votes
User:Tapered seems so infatuated with): "Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments."
WP:CLOSEAFD My post to
User:Yoshiman6464 as a contributor to article was that article was up for nomination for deletion, and was made only for the "opportunity to weigh in on the discussion."
Cllgbksr (
talk) 18:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
- It would be a good idea to knock off the personal characterizations used as a prelude. That's a diversionary tactic. Also, note that "false statement" imputes bad faith to a lazy, careless mistake. I'm no exemplar, but it's a good idea to assume good faith. You sent notifications to only 2 of the other contributors, and the wording of the notifications wasn't neutral. Again, if that's not canvassing, it's close. Further, you're posting heavily to an AfD discussion concerning an article you created, and to which you're the dominant contributor/editor. That's not very good form.
Tapered (
talk) 00:35, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- Only thing User:Tapered has said on this page I agree with is that he was "wrong and careless". This article stands on it's own merit regardless of who is primary contributor or how many edited it (13 users). 27 references, 21 of which are secondary and independent (New York Times, WaPo, Business Insider, etc..) The other 6 are for context (RSBN, Spreaker). If User:Tapered wants to talk about assuming good faith, someone should step up and suggest withdrawing this article from nomination for deletion, in light of the new articles that have been posted since last Thursday, the Breitbart article and today's Newsmax article are more than a trivial mention. A lot of clean up has been done on the article, references that were criticized as possibly being self-promotional have been removed. Cllgbksr ( talk) 02:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- It would be a good idea to knock off the personal characterizations used as a prelude. That's a diversionary tactic. Also, note that "false statement" imputes bad faith to a lazy, careless mistake. I'm no exemplar, but it's a good idea to assume good faith. You sent notifications to only 2 of the other contributors, and the wording of the notifications wasn't neutral. Again, if that's not canvassing, it's close. Further, you're posting heavily to an AfD discussion concerning an article you created, and to which you're the dominant contributor/editor. That's not very good form.
Tapered (
talk) 00:35, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Important update @ What cat?: Dupree made Newsmax list today of "50 Most Influential African-American Republicans" [5]. Article/reference has been added to the WP article and is number one reference in lede. Cllgbksr ( talk) 19:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC) Dupree was on MSNBC this morning, Stephanie Ruhle segment, link to video will be added to article once available. [6] Cllgbksr ( talk) 17:30, 24 February 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.