Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Stark

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mike Stark

Mike Stark (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Subject does not meet guidelines for notability as listed in WP:BIO. 6thAvenue 16:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose deletion- Claim of non-notability is absolutely untrue, though it's possible that the article needs to be modified to highlight notability better. Stark played a central role in the demise of the George Allen campaign in 2006, one of the biggest stories of the 2006 election. He has played prominent roles in other election stories as well. Highly notable; I will seek out reliable sources to demonstrate this. -Pete 18:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: You say the claim of non-notability is "absolutely untrue," but I see no evidence to suggest otherwise. Saying that he played a "central role" in the demise of the Allen campaign is also unprovable, because there was no such "demise"--Allen lost to Webb in the slimmest of margins (49.59% for Webb, 49.20% for Allen [1]). But you are obviously welcome to try and find reliable sources to show otherwise. 6thAvenue 20:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Patience, please! I have addd one citation so far, but will find more. Regarding the Allen/Webb campaign: Allen had been regarded as a shoo-in for re-election, and a potential front-runner for the '08 Presidential election. His political career is now essentially over. That is what I meant by demise; certainly the margin was slim, but that is not the only measure, especially in such a high-profile race.
I have no problem seeking out additional sources, as the article certainly needs some work. However, deletion on the grounds of notability is a non-starter. Here is the relevant guideline:
“ A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; however, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.
  • The person has been the subject of published1 secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.2
    • If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may need to be cited to establish notability.
    • Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.3
    • Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content.
  • The person has been the subject of a credible independent biography.
  • The person has received significant recognized awards or honors.
  • The person has demonstrable wide name recognition
  • The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.4
  • Commercial endorsements of demonstrably notable products
 ”
Prior to your nomination, the article contained at least four, or perhaps six reliable secondary sources (depending what you count.) I have since added one more, and plan to add more. Can you please give an indication how may reliable sources would be required for you to accept that the subject is sufficiently notable to merit an article? -Pete 22:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: My problem is that Mike Stark meets virtually none of those criteria. Yes, his exploits have been covered by the media, but in most cases his name wasn't even attached to the coverage; for instance, when he yelled at Sen. Allen, he was identified as a "heckler," and most major media outlets left it at that. I would most certainly identify the coverage of him as "trivial" at best. He has not been the subject of a "credible independent biography," he has not received any "significant recognized awards or honors," he has no "demonstrable wide name recognition" outside of a relatively small group of people, and he has made no "widely recognized contribution" to the "enduring historical record." In sum, I just don't think that his activities really merit an entire article. 6thAvenue 15:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I had some doubts, but there do now seem to be sufficient sources for notability. DGG (talk) 23:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Fairly notable political activist. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 03:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Sufficient sources to meet notability standard. Davewild 07:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete From what I can see the guy yelled at a senator once and then used a website to harass some talk show hosts. That hardly seems notable to me, and certainly doesn't seem to fit those notability guidelines. 345th 17:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep only 2 of the many sources appear to meet WP:RS, but two are all you need. Someone has to be the least notable bio on WP, maybe it's this guy. Carlossuarez46 21:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per Carlossuarez46. It has to be somebody. Bearian 17:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • DeleteSuper Duper Uber Delete - Not notable. The majority of the article has to do with his attacks on Bill O'Reilly, which is largely unsourced, save for a Media Matters link, and even Media Matters does not cite their sources on this one, so I am inclined to exclude that source. And anyone who has edited George Soros or Bill Moyers knows that Bill O'Reilly is not notable enough to be mentioned outside of his own article, or so I have been told. And without Bill O'Reilly, who is Mike Stark again? - Crockspot 20:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, Keep, Keep He was on CSPAN on a tape of YearlyKos only tonight. His name is all over the news too for the so funny prank he played on ORielly. Link"Daily Kos diarist Mike Stark took the Daily Kos/Bill O'Reilly feud to another level 7/31 posting pictures of his trip to O'Reilly's house where he confronted O'Reilly in his driveway while he retrieved his morning paper, delivered copies of O'Reilly's sexual harrassment lawsuit to all his neighbors, and plastered O'Reilly's neighborhood with signs with statements like "Bill O'Reilly: PERVERT."Stark explains his actions: "After O'Reilly provided an "accountability moment" to the JetBlue CEO at his home, I decided to provide O'Reilly with his own accountability moment at his home." Link He is famouser each and every day. Bmedley Sutler 07:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Playing a prank on someone famous hardly elevates an individual to "notable" status. Besides, most of the stories in that Google News search that you posted don't even have anything to do with this particular Mike Stark. 6thAvenue 15:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Proofs, all from Google news. Many more on normal Google. He was just on CSPAN only last night. How can you argue he's not notable? Link#1 and Link#2 and Link#3 and Link#4 and Link#5 and Link#6 and Link#7 Seven is enough. It's a lucky number too. Mike Stark might be the next Michael Moore for his 'Gonzo Journalism'. Bmedley Sutler 22:46, 7 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.