Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Fuentes

Add links
Source: 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. as a

WP:BLP1E. RL0919 (talk) 14:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Nick Fuentes

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Nick Fuentes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete (as proposer) - Page's content isn't any indicative of the subject's notability. We don't give random white supremacist YouTubers a platform here. If merging to a larger related article isn't viable, this article should be deleted. Ewen Douglas (talk) 03:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Reads entirely like an advertisement for this teenage clown's video of hatred. Fails
    T/C) 04:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 06:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 06:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 06:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 06:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete: it's a close one. I consider the
    independent and reliable
    . However, I am erring on the side of caution because:
  1. The majority of major media coverage both cited by the article and revealed by my own source searches refers not to Fuentes as an individual but as part of a collective group of far-right youths who attended the Unite the Right rally.
  2. The only
    BLP1E
    .
  3. Large portions of the article are supported by
    questionable
    sources.
  4. The article, in its current form, is rather
    promotional
    .
Edit: while I wholeheartedly agree with
It doesn't mean we have to like what they say
.
TL;DR: delete per
WP:BLP1E. SITH (talk) 16:58, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Perhaps I should have wrote longer to clarify. I agree with what you said. What I meant was that such random alt right clowns don't deserve a place here. Our responsibility was to document high profile ones so that the public can read about them here.
T/C) 02:14, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

"Delete - Fails

WP:GNG. Don't think he's notable enough. Skirts89 (talk) 22:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

comment: I'm not so sure about "clearly"; the three sources you mention all covered Fuentes within the span of one week, so that's not sustained coverage.
WP:SUSTAINED clearly states that if "reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event... we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." There's no lasting coverage of him after that, only brief mentions. Ewen Douglas (talk) 13:34, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
note: this is this IP address's only edit, and it copy-pastes the first sentence of the first Keep vote. Ewen Douglas (talk) 20:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
comment: One of those new sources is a local newspaper, and the other is an editorial written about the author's personal experience with Fuentes during his college days. Not what I would call passing
WP:GNG level if that's all there is. Ewen Douglas (talk) 20:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
comment:' None of them are top tier RS, but there's certainly more: here, and here. Admittedly, those are not independent of the subject, but this is. Close call but I think he's past GNG.
talk) 20:29, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
"None of them are top tier RS" - that's precisely the problem with this article. (Your 3rd link literally has 1 sentence on Fuentes in the entire article). The only RS that feature him are from one week in history, and there's only 3 of those (one of those 3 is actually a blog on MMfA, so not even that great). The rest of the mentions are all from very fringe sources. That's why he doesn't meet GnG. Ewen Douglas (talk) 21:40, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To further discuss the depth and quality of coverage. Even discounting the IP, we have a majority but not quite a consensus for deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:58, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - All politics aside, I see a number of reliable sources on this article: Boston Globe, Reuters, NYT, Chicago Tribune, Mic, etc etc. Not sure I want to call Vice a reliable source, but that's here too. Seems to pass the minimum requirements for notability at the very least.
talk) 16:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
It's a fair point, Cllgbksr, and perhaps that part should have been left out. I apologize, as I believe this is only my second deletion nomination, so I'm not well-practised at it. For the record, I know there are more white supremacists on Wikipedia who are definitely notable, and I nominated this one solely based on his lack of significant coverage over a long period of time. Ewen Douglas (talk) 13:55, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do have the feeling that opposition to this article is largely coming from a place of dislike for the subject rather than Wikipedia guidelines.
talk) 18:48, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
See my comment above. That's not the case, at least for me. Ewen Douglas (talk) 14:32, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nick_Fuentes&oldid=879480055"