Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brett Kirwan


 * 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. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  00:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Brett Kirwan

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Orphan article (tagged since April 2010) about non-notable person.  Sottolacqua  (talk) 21:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: as sufficiently notable. (But then I created it, so I am a little biased.) Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 21:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - What exactly is he sufficiently notable for? The naval award means he was an outstanding naval student, but its not a notable award (in the wikipedia sense of notability).  His appearance on Jeopardy is pretty much a run-of-the-mill sort of thing.  There's some human interest local coverage  but that's not much and certainly doesn't elevate him beyond WP:BLP1E. -- Whpq (talk) 20:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand fully your point, however, this is one of those cases where the whole is greater than the sum of its individual parts; to wit:
 * 1) U.S. Navy -- certainly not notable career-wise yet, but this is current reality
 * 2) Jeopardy! -- obviously some Jeopardy! people are notable but his brief tenure would not make him so, but is included as fact (what you refer to as "human interest local coverage")
 * 3) Conservative activist -- a little more unique (also "human interest coverage", albeit maybe not local)
 * 4) Author of rather radical economics thesis supporting the existence of "sweatshops", which provoked almost universal condemnation, including citations from such luminaries as Amartya Sen and Theodore Schultz, among others (see article text). This I would say is the most important and notable facet, which, combined with the other facets makes him, in my opinion, notable. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 20:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete: Absolutely not notable. Fails WP:MILPEOPLE completely. Being on a game show and only winning two rounds is not notability. There is no real evidence of activism. Lastly, writing a paper for a second-rate university that garners some local criticism is not notability either, and his stance isn't even all that controversial or unpopular.  bahamut0013  words deeds 20:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "his stance isn't even all that controversial or unpopular": Really, I didn't know there were many people who publicly support sweatshops. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 01:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Just read sweatshop. Or, take a sociology class, then; this is one of the topics that any community college or university would likely cover as part of the curriculum.  bahamut0013  words deeds 12:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - The case for point 4 is heavily overstated. Referencing some letters to the editor in a campus paper is far from provoking universal condemnation, and name-dropping Amartya Sen and Theodore Schultz is rather disingenuous as they did not comment on Kirwan's article but were quoted as part of the letters to teh editor. -- Whpq (talk) 20:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "is rather disingenuous as they did not comment on Kirwan's article but were quoted as part of the letters to teh [sic] editor": if that is so, I apologize and strike the comment. I was led to believe by the opposing students' language that those economists had directly commented on Kirwan's rather extreme (in my opinion) position. It was not my intent to be disingenuous. I won't defend the article any further than I have already commented. If it merits deletion so be it. Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 01:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom - none of the references appear to have covered the subject of this article in any detail given their titles and what's sourced to them (most are now dead links) and I agree with Whpq's assessment of the two additional references they found. A few fairly unremarkable personal achievements don't add up to notability, particularly given that this falls under the scope of WP:BLP which requires strong sourcing and gives subjects a right to privacy unless it's clear they're notable. Nick-D (talk) 04:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom and per NickD. Anotherclown (talk) 11:32, 6 October 2010 (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.