Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Deans (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 keep. The Wordsmith Talk to me 14:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Alex Deans
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Problematic WP:BLP, with some overtones of advertorial/PR spin, of a university student whose main claim of notability is that he won a couple of youth science awards for inventing a device that, as of today, is still not actually available on the market as a consumer product. The referencing here is fully two-thirds to primary sources, like corporate and organizational press releases, that cannot support notability -- and the few pieces of reliable source coverage sprinkled in among the self-promotion are virtually all the same pieces of coverage that were deemed not enough to get him over WP:GNG the first time an article about him came up for AFD two years ago. And the other, potentially more serious, problem here is that virtually the entire substantive edit history has been at the hands of 17 newly-registered WP:SPAs (the creator, 15 more followup editors and one more who added Deans to a list of people but never edited the BLP itself) that have existed only to edit this article -- these editors almost certainly represent a coordinated puppet campaign (of either the sock or meat varieties) by one or more people with a direct conflict of interest. As always, Wikipedia is not a place where anybody is entitled to keep a LinkedIn-style profile for promotional or public relations purposes. It's an encyclopedia, where certain specific quantifiable standards of notability and sourceability have to be demonstrated for an article to become earned -- but nothing written or sourced here suggests that the subject belongs in an encyclopedia yet, and SPA puppets don't get to make up their own special rules for their own pet topic. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:28, 11 July 2016 (UTC) *Interesting discussion - I contributed at one point to this page and agree that at its current state reads slightly advertorial. I also recently removed the last "media" section which seemed superfluous. That being said, I agree withKurtis that Mr. Deans's accomplishments exceed GNG requirements. This person is notable for an encyclopedia, so I vote keep, though would suggest some small re-writes in section 2014-present to align with more encyclopedic language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marialaee (talk • contribs) 19:15, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Interesting read. On one hand, this person has clearly amassed a great deal of noteworthy accomplishments - at face value, he would seem to fulfill GNG. However, it does read as self-aggrandizement. This is a borderline case, but I'm leaning delete per nom. He's really not that significant in the grand scheme of things, and his invention hasn't actually been marketed for public consumption. Kurtis (talk) 18:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Please note that SPI/CheckUser has confirmed that virtually all of the substantive editors to this article, including Marialaee, are indeed sockpuppets of a single user and have been editblocked. Bearcat (talk) 00:05, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Possible technical reason for deletion: This page had previously been deleted twice, once by AFD, once by speedy. Given that all the major editors were sock puppets, that means that the person who created this third edition is the same as the creator of the second edition, User:Markus1463, which means that in effect he undid his own speedy deletion, which is a no-no. (Actually, there may have been one more edition than I was counting; I see that the first take was marked to be speedy-deleted, and I don't have access to information about whether the speedy was declined, or whether it was accepted, the article quickly rebuilt, and then AFD.) Perhaps User_talk:Alex_Deans should have been included in the sock investigation? --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:35, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The speedy on the first version was declined, which precipitated it being taken to AFD. For what it's worth. Bearcat (talk) 03:21, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - While this is burdened with promotional fluff, it's a very clear GNG keep based on sources showing. Don't let WP:IDONTLIKEIT get in the way of your judgement on the matter. Needs some editorial weed-whacking, for sure. Carrite (talk) 16:02, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Fully two thirds of the sourcing here is the primary sourcing kind, and the remaining third is the same set of sources that were deemed not sufficient to get him over GNG the first time. So where's there a GNG pass here exactly? This isn't about me liking or not liking the subject — I hate Donald Trump, but he's clearly notable, and I love my six-year-old niece, but she's clearly not notable. This is strictly about the level of sourcing present, which is simply not where it needs to be. Bearcat (talk) 16:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Which leaves 1/3 of the sources as okay and you need 3 decent ones to meet GNG. Carrite (talk) 01:20, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Which part of "the remaining third is the same set of sources that were deemed not sufficient to get him over GNG the first time" did you miss? There's not a single reliable source here, including the ones you point out below, that wasn't already considered, and discounted as not enough, the first time — two of the three sources you singled out below, frex, are local coverage in his own hometown, where human interest coverage of "local teen wins teen achievement award" is pretty common and WP:ROUTINE. (I was the subject of that many local media pieces in 1989 after I did well in a high school poetry contest — but that's not nearly enough by itself to make me a notable poet.) Bearcat (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * (1) Windsor Star, "Inventive Windsor teen named 'future leader' by Maclean's magazine." (2) Canadian Broadcasting Corp., "Alex Deans Wins Ontario Science Center Award...". (3) Toronto Globe and Mail: "Young Inventor Inspired to Give Back." Multiple, independently published sources of presumed reliability dealing substantially with the subject. GNG is met, we are done... Carrite (talk) 01:27, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete Per nom. The independent sources point to someone who is on the way to notability but not quite there. One of them says he hopes to be able to market his invention within a couple years. If it sells well, that might get him up to GNG. At the moment all we have is a guy with a few "he has potential" mentions trying to sockfarm an article about himself onto Wikipedia.  INeverCry   00:26, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 03:11, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete This is borderline and doesn't really pass GNG. I'm also leaning delete per WP:NOTPROMO and WP:NOTDIR. The subject is locally notable for participating in science fairs and winning awards - but quite a few kids have won such awards. The product he is working on hasn't really developed so I don't see what kind of lasting notability the subject would be known for at present. It should also be remembered that GNG is simply a presumption of notability - not a guarantee. Wikipedia is not a directory of kids winning science fairs (even kids winning multiple science fairs). Neither is it a platform for promotion. The multiple bad faith attempts at trying to create this article show that the intent is to promote a non-notable subject. A clear delete from my side. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I understand and share some of your concerns (even if I have a different idea of what should be done about them) but I do want to register that I think the "Wikipedia is not a directory of kids winning science fairs" is off-base for this. For one, Wikipedia actually is a directory of kids winning spelling bees, and an Intel prize is considerably more consequential going forward even than Scripps is. IMO, the problem really isn't that this couldn't be encyclopedic; it's only whether there are enough sources to develop a valid rather than promotional entry. Have posted more to sourcing question below. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:44, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That's actually a list of kids winning spelling bees. These kids don't have their own individual articles. Similarly, if the subject's name was added to the list of winners, I wouldn't mind. But I frankly don't think it deserves its own article. The facts in the sources btw are largely primary, having been gleaned from interviews with the subject and the sources are local. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:06, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per Lemongirl941, and for being the recreation of a page deleted by deletion discussion that does not fix the reasons for deletion. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: Sorry, but I'm seeing substantive coverage in multiple reliable sources, and obviously not press releases either. That sockpuppets are putting their oars in, that this was previously up at AfD, that the article was written in a promotional style, none of that matters -- those are content disputes that aren't within AfD's purview.  I'm also unimpressed with Lemongirl's reasoning: indeed, the GNG is not a guarantee, but it sure as hell isn't optional, and I want rather a better reason to blithely ignore it than that some of you don't think the kid is old enough, or famous enough, or hasn't "earned" lasting notability.  Baldly put, so what?  Nha Trang  Allons! 18:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * GNG is not really met here - quite a few of the secondary sources are local news and if we consider local news, then it would be quite easy for many individuals to have articles. WP:NOTDIR applies here as Wikipedia is not a directory of kids who have won science fairs. And WP:NOTPROMO applies here as well - the intent is clearly to promote the subject. If the GNG isn't a guarantee that indeed means that it is "optional". --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree on the GNG not being met: we're not talking about local supermarket weeklies, we're talking some of Canada's most prominent papers, and there is no guideline or policy debarring local papers being used for a source. As far as the "intent" goes, you are not a mindreader, and neither am I: we have no idea, actually, whether the "intent" in creating the article was promotional or not.  Your application of NOTDIR is just plain baffling: this is an article sourced to reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject, and there's nothing debarring Wikipedia from having an article on a kid who won science fairs.  Your argument sounds like a giant honking WP:ITSNOTIMPORTANT deal.  Nha Trang  Allons! 14:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This is an example of "local news" in an otherwise respected newspaper. And the intent here is promotional: they have been using multiple accounts to get this article up on Wikipedia. AGF only goes so far. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You can also see this Sockpuppet investigations/Markus1463/Archive for their intentions. Nobody abuses a bunch of accounts to productively contribute to the encyclopaedia. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:04, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Nobody ever said local media was always inherently invalid sourcing. But local media cover local people accomplishing things of no encyclopedic significance all the time — local teen wins science fair award, local teen wins local poetry contest, single mother opens new furniture store on Main Street, city councillor holds press conference to demand new traffic lights at the corner of Dewey Boulevard and McDonald Drive, PTA president denounces plan to close local elementary school, nine-toed teen tries out for high school football team, etc. — so local coverage can be deprecated as not able to assist passage of GNG in and of itself, even while still being valid for supplementary confirmation of facts after GNG has already been satisfied by stronger sources. It all depends on whether the context in which said coverage is being given constitutes an encyclopedic claim of notability or not. If a person satisfies an SNG by virtue of a specific, quantifiable and notable accomplishment (mayor of a city large enough to get its mayors over NPOL, winner of a notable national literary award, etc.), then we don't care how local or non-local the sourcing is because that accomplishment covers off the notability question in and of itself — but if they haven't, and instead you're shooting for "notable because media coverage exists", then localized sourcing doesn't assist GNG and can only serve as supplementary verification of facts after GNG has already been met elsewhere, because local media frequently devote coverage time to local people of no wider encyclopedic interest. Bearcat (talk) 15:58, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as I'm simply still not seeing enough for a comfortably confident substance for his own notability. SwisterTwister   talk  21:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep The subject has received significant coverage in this 2012 article in The Globe and Mail, this 2014 article in Maclean's, and this 2015 article from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation among the other sources listed in the article. These three sources are all national publications, not local publications. They cover the subject over a period of three years, demonstrating that has received persistent coverage. He easily passes Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Regarding the concerns about promotion, Editing policy and Deletion is not cleanup. Cunard (talk) 06:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The news is specifically from the "local" sections. And GNG is a presumption, not a guarantee. We often delete articles due to WP:NOT and over here WP:NOTDIR applies. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The CBC source is from CBC Windsor (see the "windsor" right in its URL), not the CBC's national news division — so it's local coverage in his own hometown, where "local teen does stuff" coverage is expected and WP:ROUTINE. The Maclean's is a "several young future leaders" listicle, featuring barely 100 words about Deans, and therefore not substantive. Those sources would count toward supplementary confirmation of facts after GNG had already been passed, but cannot bring the GNG in and of themselves. Which leaves us with just the Globe and Mail, which leaves us with GNG not met because one GNG-qualifying source is not enough to pass GNG. And just like I told Carrite above, all three of those sources are among the set of sources that have already been looked at and found to be not enough the first time. If you want to show that he passes GNG, you need to show new sources that haven't already been considered and discounted, not just repeating the same inadequate sources over and over again. Bearcat (talk) 15:50, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Ongoing news coverage of him. Seems to be a leaning the youth of the subject as a partial reason to delete. I see more reasons to keep the article than delete. Karl Twist (talk) 10:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep I certainly agree there are problems with the entry, but since "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article" (emphasis in the original), and I see cited sources from the Globe and Mail, the Independent, the CBC, and then here's more attention from:
 * 1) Metro
 * 2) GOOD magazine
 * 3) Bustle
 * 4) Upworthy
 * 5) The Indian Tribune
 * 6) Sputnik News


 * ...I feel comfortable saying GNG is met. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you may be the first established editor in Wikipedia history to try putting forward Upworthy as a reliable source (which it's not.) Bearcat (talk) 17:59, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Update I've taken a pass at reorganizing and cutting out a lot of the promotionalism. Plenty more where that came from, truth be told, so if anyone else wants to hop in please do! In meantime I hope it's A, somewhat improved, and B, a little easier to assess for what more legitimate aspects there might be. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:49, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:28, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:28, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:28, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:28, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:28, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 07:04, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Clear pass of the GNG.  Claiming sources are "local" doesn't really mean anything to me.  The New York Times, our gold standard, is "local" to New York.  Should I discount the NYT as a source because its obviously local?   Th e S te ve   07:53, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Depending on the context in which coverage in The New York Times is being given, the answer to that question most certainly can be "yes". The NYT, for example, does not get the owner of a hipster foodie chip stand in Williamsburg into Wikipedia just because it got a restaurant review in the NYT's food section; the NYT does not get unelected candidates to New York City Council into Wikipedia just because the election campaign got coverage in the local news section. And on and so forth; the coverage still has to be in a context that makes the topic more than just locally interesting. Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * , the kinds of examples you give of course would not be sufficient to establish notability but as I understand 's concern--or, the concern that I have here and often elsewhere is not whether the source suffices, but whether it is automatically excluded from contributing toward notability at all, on the basis of localism. For instance, I think we'd almost certainly consider the NYT write-up of a hipster chef (just to keep it in BLP territory, for consistency) in Williamsburg alongside other sources if others exist? It could go toward, for instance, the "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" at WP:BASIC, no? Or to take a different example, we wouldn't insist that only commentary in non-New York media count toward assessing the notability of a Broadway performer, right? If we literally only had New York sources, then that could be a problem, but if we have some from elsewhere and some from New York, we'd count them all together, no? Innisfree987 (talk) 18:25, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Innisfree is exactly right. Lemongirl says "quite a few of the secondary sources are local news and if we consider local news" - of course we need to consider local news.  We can certainly give local news less weight, but it must still be considered.  Add Macleans + Globe and Mail + "quite a few local sources" and the GNG is met.    Th e S te ve   23:10, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * And as I've already noted above, the Maclean's reference is a blurb in a "several young people to watch" listicle, so it's not substantively enough about Deans to help get Deans over GNG. None of the other people profiled in the listicle have Wikipedia articles, and none of them would get articles just because listicle either. And the Globe piece, while longer, is a fluffy human interest piece which simply isn't saying anything about him that would constitute a notability claim for the purposes of an encyclopedia if it's the strongest source anybody's been able to come up with. Bearcat (talk) 16:11, 10 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete The claims made in the article are outrageous. According to the Windsor Star he was supposedly an "inventor, scientist, artist, athlete, politician" at 16 years old. He's none of those things per our guidelines. He has no career as an artist; he fails WP:ARTIST in every conceivable way, and similarly fails WP:ATHLETE, WP:ACADEMIC and WP:POLITICIAN. If age shouldn't matter, and I agree it shouldn't, then we should not hold children and adolescents to lower standards than adults, as the Winsor Star does. To say that he is an artist on the basis of a statement that "he’s been teaching himself the art of portraiture" completely invalidates the source. He's a promising young man, but until he has actually fulfilled that promise, he's not yet notable. Mduvekot (talk) 14:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering if you have any thoughts on GNG and the other sources beyond the Windsor Star ? Innisfree987 (talk) 16:23, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that WP:GNG applies. The article is a WP:BLP, so WP:BIO applies, or any of the other subject specific notability guidelines I mentioned above. The CBC and the Globe and Mail are usually reliable sources. The problem is not the number of sources, but what notable accomplishments they support. As far as I can tell, that amounts to winning the Intermediate $1,000 award at the Canada-Wide Science Fair in 2013 and the Second Award of $1,500 Intel International Science and Engineering Fair. The iAid has not been built, and has not yet proven to be something that has actually helped blind people. When the iAid is in production and has been demonstrated to make a significant improvement to blind people's lives, and when peer-reviewed papers about his work are published and widely cited I'll consider him a notable scientist. If his figure drawing is exhibited in a solo-show in a major art museum and a monograph is published about his art, I'll consider him a notable artist. But until then, the press he has received amounts to reporting on someone who is known for being a promising student. Mduvekot (talk) 03:03, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok so guideline's really straightforward on this count. You're right, we're talking about a biography, so from WP:BASIC (in broader article, WP:Notability_people): "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." If you believe "The CBC and the Globe and Mail are usually reliable sources. The problem is not the number of sources," then the entry passes our notability guidelines, unless it "fall[s] under exclusionary criteria, such as being notable only for a single event, or such as those listed in What Wikipedia is not." The next section, on SNGs also cautions: "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability." This is a matter of consensus, that if sufficient secondary sources giving notice to a topic exist, we don't go on to second-guess whether the accomplishments they are covering deserve their attention. That would be gravely at odds with WP:NPOV. WP:WHYN reminds us of the same: if you read through its reasoning, it's all about whether enough sources exist to develop a balanced article on the topic. That's our question here at AfD: do sufficient sources exist to write that article? Not even, are they in the article yet (WP:ARTN), or, does the content meet other Wikipedia standards like due weight. Those would be questions for the talk page or edits directly to the article (which I encourage you to join in on, I def agree the article still needs a lot more work!) Innisfree987 (talk) 17:29, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If you believe "The CBC and the Globe and Mail are usually reliable sources …" then the entry passes our notability guidelines No it does not. The coverage still needs to be substantial. Mduvekot (talk) 19:12, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I did not say that it was strictly a matter of reliability. I was pointing out that you said both 1, that the sources are reliable and 2, that the number of them is not the problem.  I am trying to assume good faith here, but  (I apologize to, I was wrong to suggest it might not be in good faith!) Innisfree987 (talk) 16:29, 11 August 2016 (UTC) When someone points out to you that there being an adequate number of reliable sources means that a subject gets an entry, and then you change your mind about whether it is an adequate number of sources, it really starts to feel like WP:IDONTLIKEIT.  But maybe I am misunderstanding your argument, I really apologize if I'm getting it wrong here.  And for what it's worth, I'm not even saying it'd be a bad opinion to hold,  simply to think this isn't the sort of thing that ought to be in the encyclopedia.  I see the argument for that POV. All I'm saying is that I think the  census guidelines have different inclusion criteria, and I think we should strive to apply them as evenly as possible.  I don't see how this entry clearly meets any of the exclusionary categories; I do think it meets BASIC standard;  and I don't think our personal opinions should override that. Innisfree987 (talk)
 * , I think it would good if we took a moment on either your talk page or mine to figure out if you are accurately representing my position. I don't think that discussion ought to be part of this AfD Mduvekot (talk) 21:06, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure thing --if I've misunderstood or mischaracterized or both I'd def want to correct it here too (would certainly be germane!) but I'm happy to discuss wherever you think it'd be most productive. I'll ping you now. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:56, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The problems remain that the CBC source is not the CBC's national news division, but its local bureau in the subject's own hometown. So because CBC, it would be perfectly acceptable for some additional confirmation of facts after GNG had already been met — but because local CBC rather than national CBC, it can't help to carry the passage of GNG. It can be the icing on the cake; it cannot be the cake itself. And The Globe and Mail remains (a) the only genuinely strong source that has been offered at all, and hence not passing GNG all by itself, and (b) a fluffy, non-substantive human interest piece in the Life section, which fails to say anything about him that would confer passage of any SNG as an alternative to passing GNG on volume. Bearcat (talk) 19:29, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding us? I'm aware that here on Wikipedia there's a lot of self-referential navel gazing, but damn: are you seriously suggesting that people aren't permitted to be inventors, scientists, artists, athletes or politicians if they don't meet our self-created notability criteria for the same?  Nha Trang  Allons! 14:50, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I neither said nor suggested that "that people aren't permitted to be inventors, scientists, artists, athletes or politicians if they don't meet our self-created notability criteria for the same". I do, however in all seriousness suggest per our policies, that articles about people who fail the notability criteria for their professions ought to be deleted. Mduvekot (talk) 23:26, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Er, no, a person's allowed to be anything they want to be. But they don't get a Wikipedia article about them doing their thing until they've met our notability criteria for it. Have we become some kind of virtual reality universe where not having a Wikipedia article somehow makes a person cease to exist? Bearcat (talk) 14:05, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * What I understood Nha Trang to be saying is, or at least the part of the argument that also occurred to me was, SNGs don't apply to statements in an entry, only to the subject, and only if GNG/Basic hasn't already made them moot, as I was just saying to Mduvekot above. I realize your view is that Basic isn't met anyway. All the same I think Nha Trang is correct that not meeting a given special notability standard does not automatically disqualify a claim in an article, per WP:NNC. George W. Bush is not wiki-notable for being a painter but I definitely believe the entry should mention him being one, all the same! Innisfree987 (talk) 17:49, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Exactly. What I was refuting was Mduvekot's indignation at the Windsor Star making claims for the subject that flout various SNGs.  I continue to maintain that the Windsor Star (or any other reliable source, hopefully) doesn't give a good goddamn about our opinion, and might well continue to call people inventors, artists or just about anything else without seeking the permission of Wikipedia authors to do so.  Nha Trang  Allons! 19:14, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * And with all due respect, that's not at all what Mduvekot said. He can be an amateur artist all he wants, and the Windsor Star can say he's an amateur artist all it wants — but that doesn't make him wiki-notable as an artist until he objectively passes WP:CREATIVE for something related to art. Bearcat (talk) 17:08, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Does not meet WP:BIO notability, just a handful of human interest stories typical for this sort of topic. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. The coverage of the science fair win is a clear instance of BLP1E, and in my opinion, an excellent example or why we need that policy--to prevent attempts at encyclopedic coverage of what gets some human interest coverage tat the time, but is of no actual importance as judged in a broader perspective.  BLP1E was adopted as policy   because it is specifically intended to over-rule the GNG guideline, where it applies.    DGG ( talk ) 14:20, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Where, exactly, do the words "No Human Interest Stories" appear in our General Notability Guideline? Carrite (talk) 15:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The context in which the coverage is being given very much matters to GNG. Lots of people have been the subject of human interest pieces in The Globe and Mail or The New York Times without qualifying for a Wikipedia article because of it — the coverage has to be about them doing something that constitutes an encyclopedic notability claim in order to count toward GNG. Bearcat (talk) 15:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 13:42, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete -- the arguments for the deletion have been convincing. All of the coverage seems trivial (aka human interest stories) and is not yet sufficient for an encyclopedia entry. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep After reading the delete arguments, which I initially thought were strong, I was inclined to lean delete. However, upon closer inspection I realized that those delete arguments were unfounded so I discounted them. We're struggling here over whether Deans i) meets GNG and 2) if he has enough significant non-'local' coverage. Cunard shared Globe and Mail article, Maclean's article, and this 2015 CBC article...Bearcat continued to argue: "All three of those sources are among the set of sources that have already been looked at and found to be not enough the first time". The last AFD wrapped up by the 29th of August, 2014. The Globe and Mail article was published on the 26th of September 2014, while the CBC article was published in 2015. It is abundantly clear that both of those articles were published after the last debate had ended. More specifically, 17 out of the 28 shown sources were published AFTER the last debate finished, so it's not even possible that they were considered in the last AFD.  I see comprehensive and in-depth coverage(and not just human-interest stories) from (1)the mentioned Globe and Mail article (2) The Independent, (3) CBC/Radio-Canada which is NOT the same article which was discounted before, (4)this CTV national article and interview and (5)this article from Postmedia Network, one of the largest Canadian news distributors(publishing under Canada.com online). These articles were all written after the last AFD, are NATIONAL (and international) publications (so the argument of being 'local' can't even apply here) and are significant, in-depth articles, detailing Deans' work with the blind community and his efforts about working with young people on a national level. This is a clear meet of GNG, and with 5 very strong sources with plenty more of supporting ones, this seems like a no-brainer. IamNate (talk) 21:33, 18 August 2016 (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.