Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Plecnik

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 delete. Over and apart from the bad-faith single-purpose meatpuppeting of this discussion by the keep votes, the sources added to the article establish that Plecnik is notable within conservative youth circles. But not outside of them yet. If and when a non-conservative media outlet gives him some non-trivial coverage, then we can consider recreating this. Daniel Case 02:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Plecnik

John Plecnik (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This is a complete and direct copy paste from the subject's personal website [1]. The statements come directly from the site and aren't sourced. The topic does not demonstrate notability, it appears to be a vanity page. Edit - Also copyvio, thank you Tdmg. Chris M. 07:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

  • delete Kripto 09:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless reliable sources can be provided. Terraxos 22:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity is not a good reason to delete this page, but copyvio is a great one, this is just a copy-paste job and would be a speedy deletion under g12. There are also no reliable independent sources to verify his notability. Tdmg 03:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Just google the name, every source can be backed up. The Rush Limbaugh thing comes up on like the third page. Just add cites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.10.132.251 (talk)
  • Save This article is notable, but needs editing. The OP needs to get to work and add cites, or let someone else do it. This deletion recommendation doesn't make sense. Every statement that is made in the article is easily found online. It's just a matter of bothering to locate the primary sources and wiki this. User:Charlotte88888888 04:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
These are this users only edits on wikipedia Chris M. 07:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Retain This is not a vanity page. There is clear notability here, abliet not an overwhelming amount. Is there a connection between Chris Mason going to Belmont Abbey College and the subject being an alumni? Does Chris know the subject or hate him? Dudemasternineteen 05:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
This is this users only edit on wikipedia Chris M. 07:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm a wikipedia editor, and I stumbled across an article about a person who happened to be an alumni of my school. His page is a copyvio from his personal website, and there wasn't anything sourced and it was full of weasel words. You'll note I put up a "citation needed" tag before I went down this route. If sources are as easy to find as others suggested they were, then the "citation needed" tag would have stood there. We simply cannot leave a copyvio of someones personal website up as there article on wikipedia. Nothing personal, I never met the guy, please assume good faith. I don't think this is good faith. CollegeGOPFan 1:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC) Chris M. 07:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep the article Plecnik is well known in youth politics. Blogs are still arguing over him and list him as one of the most influential persons in College Republicans. I can't even count the number of columns he has online. HoboMM 10:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
This is this users only edit on wikipedia besides removing the notability tag I put on this article without any other changes. Chris M. 07:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep it This is a no brainer. The subject gets over 60,000 hits on google.
This is this ips only edit on wikipedia Chris M. 07:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
    • The name "Plecnik" gets over 250k. If you search for "John Plecnik" in quotes (as you would if you were looking for mentions of his name exactly) you get only 915 hits. Hardly a "no-brainer" when you correctly use Google. Chris M. 07:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • If you search on John-Plecnik+|+John-T-Plecnik google throws back 10,700. I have verified a number of the facts in the article; the other facts can all be verified to sources which are not independent, so I have tagged them with {{fact}} as Im pretty sure they are accurate and possibly verifiable to reliable sources, but there are a lot of google results to wade through. The text still resembles the text is it a copyvio of, but that isnt reason for deletion. His essays are widely republished, with Rush Limbaugh reading one of his essay over the radio being the most notable in my opinion, so it is a weak keep from me. John Vandenberg 08:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep John Plecnik is a legend in the youth politics niche. If this kid Chris M. really does go to Belmont Abbey I'm surprised that he hasn't heard of him. He must be a liberal trying to delete conservative bios. Nice. CollegeGOPFan 1:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
This is this users only edit on wikipedia other then the one to remove a notability tag without discussion or an edit summary. Chris M. 07:33, 8 July
Ever heard of Assuming good faith? Your blatant attack on my character is not appreciated. I stated I "have not met him" hence I have no reason to hate him as someone's baseless claim stated. I have heard the name yes or I wouldn't have clicked the link. Chris M. 22:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Please stop adding the Notability Header ChrisM, the subject's notability is established. I think it's clear this article needs to be edited, however, I'd say the consensus is a clear keep. I've tried to fill in a few blanks on the cites. It's time that you help out or move on. Hopefully you don't have a grudge against John Plecnik or conservatives, but there doesn't seem to be any reason for deleting this article. And adding the Notability header seems to be an insult, because the subject is so clearly notable.HoboMM 2:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
If you look at wikipedia standards, notability cannot be assumed, it must be demonstrated. The complete lack of sources of the article when I re-added the tag after it was removed twice (by these people who seem to come to wikipedia only for this article) had absolutely no sources. Again, you ridiculous claims that I have some kind of agenda are laughable. As you can see above, I'm not the only person who thinks this way as a few other established wikipedians thought it was worth deleting. As the article stands now it has sources of which I haven't been able to look into, but I do not appreciate assumptions of bad faith. Chris M. 22:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Notability is something that anyone can easily look to, i.e., using a simple google search. It seems that HoboMM and John Vandenberg were able to back up all the facts in the article, and demonstrate the subject's notability very easily. Why didn't you just google plecnik and add the cites instead of trying to delete the article if you don't have a bone to pick? It just seems suspicious to me.CollegeGOPFan 7:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I put up a "citation needed" tag for almost week and nothing was done, then when this afd comes up, 6 brand new users come out of nowhere to oppose it. An article needed deletion because notability was not proven when the article was first copied. Having google searches and having your name stated on sites does not alone make you notable, many of the references only mention him in passing. That being said
  • Delete NN neo-con, only articles published appear to be in partisan forums, many of which are non-notable. Closing admins may wish to check the origin of the Keep !votes before rendering a decision. Caknuck 00:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Wow, this is a heated discussion. I'm new to wikipedia, but a big fan of conservative commentary. Plecnik has been on Rush, Human Events, FrontPageMag.com, linked to on NewsMax and TownHall...most of these are cited in this article. Sure, he's no Hannity or Reagan, but there are far less notable people/subjects on wikipedia. The real beef here seems to be that there was no sources cited. They're cited now. So what if the forums are partisan. There aren't many political forums that aren't. NCCRActivist 8:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
This is this users only edit on wikipedia 64.252.120.229 05:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Clear bad faith from ChrisM. Sure a lot of non-wikipedians are commenting, but ChrisM's pointing that out is an avoidance tactic to take away some emphasis from the revelation that he goes to the same school as the subject did and seems to have a beef with him. Questioning Plecnik's notability is laughable. No one claims that Plecnik is as famous as Bush or Clinton, but he's certainly notable by wikipedia's standards. Google, and Rush Limbaugh are just two easy sources of proof that Plecnik has a wikipedia article for a reason. Also, the fact that all the sources in the article were cited in a day is proof that Plecnik is notable and everything in the article is verifiable and true. This seems to be a case of either a liberal or a personal beef on the part of ChrisM.
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.