Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Barschak

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 now that the article has been sourced. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Closer's note: The discussion produced no clear consensus for refocusing and renaming the article, but also did not yield a clear consensus against it. I think that issue would be best handled through discussion on the article's talk page. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aaron Barschak

Aaron Barschak (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

The subject is not notable as he has only crashed one party of the Royal Family and notability is non-transferable. ~ ΜΛGиυs ΛΠιмυМ ≈ √∞ 22:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - the key phrase ...and he appears to have returned to obscurity... sums up the case. Eddie.willers 02:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - It has some Royal Family related notability. See for example Michael Fagan incident. Although Mr Barschak didn't gain the the cult status of Michael Fagan, the article could be reworded so that it is less of a biography but more about the incident mentioned that gave him his 15 minutes of fame. Mike33 04:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Notability is not transferable, however. ~ ΜΛGиυs ΛΠιмυМ ≈ √∞ 16:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment If I gave the impression he was only famous because of the royal family its wrong. Notability is often a check he hits 903 on the no blog no wiki mirror etc check on google Google Search on Aaron Barchak. On google news archive with the same search he hits 1060 Google News Archive search - think he has earned notability far outside a few web blogs. Mike33 18:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Notability maybe not transferable, but use the same argument in Essjay controversy, and you have a big no go. Mike33 18:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I do agree that google hits can give an impression about one's notability, but 85 of those hits were the "Funnies" websites. ~ ΜΛGиυs ΛΠιмυМ ≈ √∞ 19:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's look at this in a different perspective: He is a troublemaking anti-establishment comedian. Do you know how many of those there are in any given town? Most of them don't warrant inclusion, so why should this one? ~ ΜΛGиυs ΛΠιмυМ ≈ √∞ 19:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

ok magnus - dont actually think it will survive the Afd. It wasn't my article, but the incident does need listing either as the (self loving anti-establishmentarian he is) or grouped together with a few other palace break in security breaches. British Royal Family Incidents or something. It a catch all and I agree, but if the media makes a star of somebody, we have very little we can do but echo those facts in a sourced way. But i could give an XXXX for his edinburgh reviews or his appearences on talkradio. I'll write a short article about buck house incidents (lol see WP:SPIDER), if they are covered seperately in wikipedia it would be wrong to leave this guys 15mins of fame out. (if you can offer any help and guidence on a new article please get in touch Mike33 19:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

just as an afterthought, links to the page all seem to be dubious (however probably good faith links). Mike33 20:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - I would expect an encyclopaedia to be able to answer a question such as 'who was that bloke who invaded the royal party at Windsor Castle?' There are plenty of links that demonstrate he was newsworthy at the time. Nunquam Dormio 06:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

despite ur name (nunquam dormio - i won't sleep?!) Thanks and if you want to help creat a bigger better article that includes this dude (ignoring all the comments above about him) then cool. If this passes through Afd, i am going on a month of wiki-cleanup. Mike33 07:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The article cites multiple, non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources, therefore demonstrating that its target meets WP:BIO. The BBC news coverage is sufficient evidence of notability, IMHO. Walton^Assistance! 10:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
• Move/rename article to a title about the incident only, leave redirect, and refocus article. Lets face it, people, this is an article about the single incident which gives him his (albeit-marginal) notability - it is not a "biography" proper. The best thing is to move it to a header about the incident (I cite the precedent of Essjay, amongst many others), and refocus the article about the incident. Daniel 10:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

There's a little more than just the Windsor Castle incident so it wouldn't merge that well. There's the stand-up comedy, the Chapman 'attack', the film, and his stunt in Wapping. Nunquam Dormio 11:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree - he's received press coverage for several incidents, not just one. I think he merits a biography in his own right. Walton^Assistance! 15:20, 4 June 2007 (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.