Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chuck Munson (2nd nomination)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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, though a few more sources wouldn't hurt. ELIMINATORJR 15:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Chuck Munson
AfDs for this article:
Chuck isn't notable. Running a fringe view website and being interviewed once by a major news source isn't evidence of being a notable bit of history--anyone can get interviewed by major press, that act isn't notable. Maybe a website article can exist, but the leader/webmaster of some website or blog isn't notable, especially in this case. Recommend delete as a vanity article, and also note it looks like the subject worked on it too and possibly created the article as User:Chuck0? That's COI issues as well. Delete. Freedomeagle 17:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: It's a little disingenuous of you to portray this as a vanity article, as a conflict of interest and suggest Munson as the creator when you yourself notified the creator of the article of this Afd. This nomination does not appear to be in good faith. Skomorokh incite 18:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Nominator is not being disingenuous, but courteous. When you nominate an article for deletion, you notify the creator. Easy peasy. 199.33.32.254 18:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Exactly - he notified the creator, User:Tothebarricades.tk while appearing to insinuate that the creator was in fact the subject of the article, that it was a vanity page and a conflict of interest. My point was that the nominator knew very well that User:Chuck0 did not create the article, and by making suggestions to the contrary was being disingenuous. Skomorokh incite 18:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment It certainly appears that this nominator did not bother to read the last AfD, which discussed the authorship of the article and the notability of the subject. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- That afd is very old. He doesnt meet source needs. Freedomeagle 20:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment It certainly appears that this nominator did not bother to read the last AfD, which discussed the authorship of the article and the notability of the subject. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Exactly - he notified the creator, User:Tothebarricades.tk while appearing to insinuate that the creator was in fact the subject of the article, that it was a vanity page and a conflict of interest. My point was that the nominator knew very well that User:Chuck0 did not create the article, and by making suggestions to the contrary was being disingenuous. Skomorokh incite 18:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Nominator is not being disingenuous, but courteous. When you nominate an article for deletion, you notify the creator. Easy peasy. 199.33.32.254 18:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. He's been interviewed by the NY Times, but I'm not seeing much else that can possibly establish notability on this one. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Excuse my ignorance, but does WP:BIO not state that multiple sources are only required when the coverage is insubstantial? You could hardly describe the NYT piece as only referring to Munson in a trivial manner. Skomorokh incite 20:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, I did create the article so my comments here might be a bit redundant, but Chuck is a well-known figure in the American anarchist movement. Infoshop is only a "fringe" site depending on your point of view; in fact it's one of, if not the, most visited anarchist website. And he's been interviewed by other papers looking for an anarchist viewpoint, although the NYT was certainly the biggest. Whether you think the anarchist movement is unimportant is irrelevant; he gets nearly 50,000 google hits, which is more than you can say about the majority of bios on wikipedia. --Tothebarricades 04:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Any other articles you can come up with and stick them in? If you can do that, I for one will change my mind. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- What? --Tothebarricades 06:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Articles. You know, reliable sources that can verifiably show that he's notable? Usually those come in the form of a newspaper article. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- What? --Tothebarricades 06:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Any other articles you can come up with and stick them in? If you can do that, I for one will change my mind. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The editorships are notable. DGG (talk) 00:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- keep he makes the cut with biography research guide and, quite frankly, assertions of non-notability don't take into account the relatively small size of the international anarchist scene. i don't think anyone here could name a "famous lacrosse player", but that doesn't mean that no lacrosse player is notable. --frymaster 19:27, 2 August 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.
