Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teddy Joseph Von Nukem

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.

(non-admin closure) Shawn Teller (talk) 02:46, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Teddy Joseph Von Nukem

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails

WP:NOTNEWS as well. Brandmeister^talk 22:50, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Missouri. Shellwood (talk) 23:32, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As the person who started the article. The subject of the article satisfies

WP:GNG due to the multiple independent sources of significant coverage in reliable sources

. Not only that, but the news coverage on him occurred in both 2017 and is ongoing in 2023. The article is well sourced, but for the avoidance of doubt:

He has been noted for multiple things (drug smuggling in 2021, protesting in 2017, assaulting someone in 2017, changing his name in 2012, his death in 2023) in multiple countries (USA, UK, Mexico, Portugal) over multiple years. The coverage has been

sustained. The Washington Post published a long piece about him today. To say he is notable is an understatement. CT55555(talk) 23:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

As above, all sources in the article look more like

WP:RECENTist media circus without lasting impact. There are literally thousands non-notable people that did what he did: smuggled drugs, protested, assaulted someone and changed their name. There's no indication of something outstanding. Brandmeister^talk 23:31, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

In the context of three of the sources above being from 2017, your comments are truly difficult to understand. Either way,

WP:GNG is what matters here. CT55555(talk) 23:36, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Those 2017 sources do not reveal anything special either, instead they just regurgitate the fascination by his viral photo, some

Hardly. But Duke Nukem brings some nostalgia, I admit... Brandmeister^talk 23:58, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I could speculate about his future newsworthiness. Fortunatly, once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage (from

WP:NOTTEMPORARY

).

The 2017 sources are about him. That constitutes significant coverage. We're on the edge of both bludgeoning this conversation at this point, so let's agree to disagree and let others opine please. CT55555(talk) 00:04, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources are more than adequate to meet the standard of notability. Jmbranum (talk) 23:07, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets

WP:GNG. LizardJr8 (talk) 00:44, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep, meets notability. No doubts. Nanash (talk) 02:05, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If we keep this article - as is looking exceedingly likely - it should be renamed "Ted von Nukem", because that's apparently how he was most often referred to prior to his death. DS (talk) 03:17, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for raising this. I see reliable sources being inconsistent on this.

Ted Von Nukem (both link through), I've not seen any with a lowercase V, so I assume that is an error. I suggest we discuss this on the talk page of the article. CT55555(talk) 04:20, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep, covered in depth by multiple sources and as User:LizardJr8 mentioned it meets

WP:GNG. Sahaib (talk) 07:29, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep - The use of emotive language like 'freak' in the proposal doesn't really get away from the fact this person, unpleasant though he was - he would certainly have hated me! - meets GNG. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:06, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. GenevieveDEon sums it up clearly: yes, he was an unpleasant person, but notable nonetheless. Athel cb (talk) 13:15, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources in the article indicate passing of GNG. Tails Wx 13:21, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and speedy close per all above. Cheers. Wime Pocy 13:27, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Got photographed at a far-right rally; got arrested for drug smuggling; died. Doesn't sound too notable to me. Apart from the first one, news reporting is routine, which means the first is effectively BLP1E. Black Kite (talk) 13:41, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Partially per
WP:EVENT#People notable for only one event, the major test seems to be "in the context of" or "in connection with" a single event as well as looking at how significant their role was in said event. Every source I've seen identifies him as the person in that photo, and doesn't give any other reason why they are reporting otherwise-unimportant details about him such as drug arrests or his death. Additionally, his role in the Unite the Right rally is based entirely on being present and making a strange face while being photographed. That seems like the very definition of an insignificant role in an otherwise-notable event. Contrast this with someone like Kyle Rittenhouse, who's role in that shooting was (obviously) significant and who has received significant coverage for making public speeches/political rallies, having legislation named after him, and other independent events. If there is any content worth using for Unite the Right rally or related articles, I wouldn't be opposed to merge and redirect as an alternative. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:22, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep This article meets GNG. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 09:09, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per
WP:CRIMINAL, which has more stringent requirements than just meeting GNG. Meeting GNG is not enough here, and the whole reason for CRIMINAL existing is cases just like this, where a subject can meet GNG based largely on local crime reporting. Levivich (talk) 23:11, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment. He's mostly noted for (legally) protesting, rather than his drug-related (criminal) activities. Further to that, his drug-related activities are very separate from his protesting/activism/views. CT55555(talk) 00:09, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the characterization of the violent, white supremacist Unite the Right rally rally as "protesting/activism/views". Levivich (talk) 15:30, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let's assume we both hate the event to a similar degree. I don't like this guy. But he is not noted for his crimes, he is noted for being the face of the event. Protesting is legal in the US. The criminal aspect of his biography is completely unconnected and is about drug smuggling. The crime aspects are detached from the white supremacy rally. Or if you really don't agree with that, you'd then have to agree that he is noted for multiple and separate criminal things (what ever crime you think the rally is, and international drug smuggling) which really does cement my notability claim, I think. CT55555(talk) 15:47, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He is noted for two criminal things, neither of which meet
WP:CRIMINAL. Levivich (talk) 15:51, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
- I'd be ok with a redirect as ATD, per the first sentence of CRIMINAL. Levivich (talk) 15:53, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets
WP:ATD, I personally think merging it with Peter Cvjetanovic and focusing/renaming? on the photo would be best. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:41, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I think Keep votes are rather aggressively ignoring the point of
WP:CRIMINAL specifically) derives from the understanding that applying GNG to certain classes of BLPs would result in inclusion of very trivial persons due to the way these classes are covered in the media. This person's notoriety is entirely derived from him making an odd face in a picture at a rally. That's why RS talked about him, that's why WP has an article. He is unquestionably not notable in the plain sense, and a lucid reading of GNG and BIO make it clear that we are not supposed to have an article for him. "Well technically the rally wasn't a crime" misses the point that the coverage treated it like a crime, and elevated this person in the way it elevates criminals by focusing on the salacious. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:46, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Just a couple of quick points: He is the one on the left in the photo, I'd describe his facial expression as fairly normal. He is not famous for making an odd expression. Even if he was only famous for being in a photo, people can be famous for being in photos that end up representing events (e.g.
WP:OTHERSTUFF
...

The triviality or lack thereof is the key thing.
WP:CRIMINAL
, I'm just disagreeing. I hope you didn't sense any aggression in my tone or words. If anyone does, none is intended.

I will try to be brief,
WP:GNG in my opinion. CT55555(talk) 19:12, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

I have no objection to your comments here or elsewhere, I just disagree. I'm honestly a bit disconcerted at the number of votes that are specifically citing GNG when BIO should be the policy at mind. There is an overarching spirit to WP GLs that we shouldn't be so literal in reading policy. Coverage in reliable sources is a good indicator of notability, but a person is not notable BECAUSE they are covered in reliable sources. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:21, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively (a single paragraph covering Nukem and Cvjetanovic, who is oddly missing as the focus of the photo) and Redirect to
WP:NOPAGE. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:19, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge/Redirect to
WP:NOPAGE. He doesn't have any notability outside of that one event. The drug arrest is routine.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:15, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 00:44, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Famous for being an odd duck I suppose. There's coverage of what he did at the rally and what happened after. It's not terribly notable, but he's met GNG at least. So long as the article is NPOV, which it seems to be, it's fine for wiki. Oaktree b (talk) 04:48, 23 February 2023 (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.