Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trevor Loflin (2nd nomination)

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. as non-notable Rlevse 03:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trevor Loflin (2nd nomination)

Trevor Loflin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Please see this page's previous entry. The result of the previous debate was to merge the article to SAT. However, the merged section was totally out of place in the SAT article, which mainly focuses on the format and history of the SAT, and thus was promptly deleted. It really was not an appropriate solution in the first place to merge the article to SAT, as there was both minimal consensus to do so and the notability and importance of Mr. Loflin is highly questionable in the first place. In saying so, I am aware that I step away from WP:ATT and WP:BIO, as there have been multiple non-trivial instances of media coverage of Mr. Loflin (as was stated as rationale for the merger). Nonetheless, I believe that, per WP:LIVING, the obscurity of Mr. Loflin's accomplishment entitles him to a little bit of privacy. Quite fundamentally, Mr. Loflin's accomplishment, despite being covered by media, is not really of note; many many students receive perfect SAT scores, and being the only (?) homeschooled student to do so is not that impressive given the large rate at which perfect SAT scores are produced. I know many students at my school who have received perfect SATs. I thus advocate the deletion of this article as non notable and as in violation of WP:BLP. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 19:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Please note that Mr. Loflin appears to be a contributor to Wikipedia with username Trevorloflin. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 19:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Per the same reasons as I used in the nomination of the previous AFD. Garion96 (talk) 19:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per my reason in the previous AfD (Merge, falling back on Delete if it doesn't fit) He does not adequately meet notability standards. The CNN transcript is of a video from the other news source used as a reference, so I don't see them as 2 separate sources. The "bio" reference is from his employer, so it is not "independent of the subject." The last one, I'm not entirely sure what it is, but Loflin isn't mentioned until the second to last paragraph, so he is hardly the subject of it. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 19:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The first source is, as you note, not independent. The second and third one can count as one source. The last one is indeed not about him in its entirety, but that doesn't make the coverage non-trivial. To quote Uncle G, "Non-trivial" has never actually meant "sole focus to the exclusion of everything else". -- Black Falcon 19:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I didn't say the last one is trivial, I said he is not the subject. A notable topic should be the 'subject of multiple non-trivial published works. While he is included in 3 sources, 1 is not independant of him, 1 he is not the subject of, and 1 actually fits the criteria, however, one isn't "multiple." Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 19:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral, leaning toward "delete" Keep per the same reasons I used in the previous AFD: per WP:BIO as he has been the subject of multiple sources that are reliable and independent of the subject of the article. I don't see this as being a violation of WP:BLP given that the article's content is sourced; moreover, Mr. Loflin has not requested the article's removal. I noted in the previous AFD that a merge would work only "if an appropriate section within the SAT article is suggested"; none was offered and I do not think one could have been suggested. -- Black Falcon 19:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Upon further searching for online sources, it seems that the sources included in the article are the only reliable ones that exist (discounting reproductions of the existing sources). Given that, I am now leaning toward deletion. -- Black Falcon 18:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Seems borderline either way. Doesn't seem notable in respect of the SATs, but is he notable in connection with homeschooling, to any reasonable extent? Alai 20:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Merge one sentence Delete. Just put in a sentence like "the first/only person to get a perfect score on the SAT was Trevor Loflin in 2001." He doesn't need a whole section. --Wafulz 20:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Except he isn't the first or the only person to get a perfect score. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 20:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Is he the first/only to hit a perfect score despite being homeschooled?--Wafulz 22:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Homeschooled, probably not. Homeless, probably, but I don't think it's verifiable, and thus probably not notable. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 00:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as there is nothing indicating why getting a perfect score is, in fact, notable. If the article is to be merged with anything, it should be homeschooling as that is essentially the whole point here -- "home schooled student gets perfect score". But I don't think it's appropriate there either. Disclaimer: I did very very well on my SATs. --Dhartung | Talk 22:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep Others have gotten perfect scores, especially after the scores were renormed. --not all of them publicize the matter. He's I think perhaps notable as a verifiable example of a very bright student, homeschooled, who chose to go to a university not usually thought of in connection with very high scores.--and therefore a poster child for the home schooling movement. DGG 09:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral I object to neither the article nor the nomination for deletion. I've intentionally refrained from participating in the article's creation. I don't consider myself especially notable, though I understand from the media attention some do. If the debate is solely concerning sources, I could provide additional ones, but if there is some doubt, regardless of sources, whether my accomplishments are notable, deletion would probably be the better policy. If I do more in the future to warrant inclusion, I'm sure we can revisit the issue. Trevor 16:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral I closed the previous AFD as 'merge' because at the time I felt that was the clear consensus. In retrospect, I think I should have relisted it for further discussion instead of closing the debate. My bad. Having said that, we shouldn't delete the article simply because the previous merge attempt didn't work. If it doesn't meet WP:BIO, then let's delete it, but don't delete it because the content didn't plug in to SAT. KrakatoaKatie 20:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The challenge that this violates WP:BLP is somewhat prepostorous, especially when taking the CNN coverage into consideration. RFerreira 01:37, 15 April 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.