Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coleman Hughes


 * 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. Consensus is clear, and sufficiency of sources is reasonably well-argued. bd2412 T 22:28, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Coleman Hughes

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There is insufficient RS coverage of this individual (in fact, there is no such RS content cited at the moment in the article). As far as I can tell (through a Google search), the only RS coverage of this individual relates to a single episode: testimony he gave in Congress a few days ago (he was one of many witnesses called). So, there is no RS coverage, except that which is limited to a single event. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:18, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I had no trouble at all finding significant coverage of Coleman predating the testimony in a very simple gNews search. I put a sampling of such coverage in my comment .E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:27, 28 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - It does seem that the subject is only notable for this one event which is not sufficient for an article. Indeed, performing a google search of: "Coleman Hughes" -wikipedia -hearing -testimony -reparations, brings up nothing notable TheSLEEVEmonkey (talk) 16:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:01, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:01, 21 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep I'm afraid that efforts to delete this BLP may reflect negative sentiment regarding the subject's controversial views. It is patently false that there is no RS content cited in the article. It is also patently false that there is no RS coverage of the individual beyond his congressional testimony on June 19th. Given that a date-restricted Google search turns up the below, and that this subject clearly meets the requirements in WP:BASIC, it's hard to understand why this article was ever nominated for deletion in the first place.
 * https://reason.com/podcast/coleman-hughes-podcast/
 * https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2018/07/20/the-puzzle-of-race-and-wealth
 * https://www.newsday.com/opinion/columnists/cathy-young/cathy-young-alexander-mcnabb-columbia-university-everyday-racism-1.30124902
 * https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/01/a-young-black-writer-makes-the-case-for-putting-less-emphasis-on-group-membership.html
 * https://pjmedia.com/trending/feminist-philosophy-class-indoctrination-says-columbia-student/
 * https://www.aei.org/publication/the-racism-treadmill/
 * https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/2/8/18205522/blackface-virginia-northam-herring-history-racism
 * https://popula.com/2018/08/08/a-black-voice-in-the-echo-chamber/
 * https://samharris.org/podcasts/134-beyond-politics-race/
 * https://fifthcolumn.podbean.com/e/121-%E2%80%9Con-antiracism-w-glenn-loury-john-mcwhorter-coleman-hughes-thomas-chatterton-williams%E2%80%9D/
 * https://www.buzzsprout.com/255935/952371
 * https://www.lepoint.fr/debats/coleman-hughes-non-l-amerique-n-est-pas-irremediablement-raciste-28-06-2018-2231273_2.php
 * https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/godless-spellchecker/the-godless-spellchecker-podcast/e/55781122?autoplay=true
 * https://nypost.com/2018/07/04/dont-fall-for-the-new-kennedy-conspiracy-theories-and-other-commentary/
 * https://www.newsweek.com/barnard-student-defends-officers-confronting-black-student-racism-1402628
 * https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/02/ralph-northams-defenders-are-missing-point/582460/
 * https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/06/a-reply-to-my-critics-dont-fight-racism-with-racism/
 * https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2018/11/coleman-hughes-reviews-stubborn-attachments.html
 * https://soundcloud.com/therightsideirl/interview-coleman-hughes-01
 * https://bloggingheads.tv/videos/53277
 * https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/7/19/1782123/-A-young-conservative-s-innumerate-explanation-of-wealth-inequality
 * https://exploringminds.show/coleman-hughes/
 * https://areomagazine.com/2019/03/07/the-evolution-of-heterodox-black-thought/
 * It's also important to appreciate that one of the reasons Hughes was invited to give testimony before congress in the first place was because his notability was enough to get him invited. Here's an example of RS coverage of the event in question- https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/19/reparations-slavery-ta-nehisi-coates-v-coleman-hughes And here's another- https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/coleman-hughes-slavery-reparations-defense/
 * I believe that this is a frivolous nomination made because of disagreement with the subject's views. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 17:12, 21 June 2019 (UTC)


 * (1) There is simply no RS coverage in the article. It's all YouTube videos and op-eds. (2) With the exception of Newsweek, the Atlantic, Vox and the WaPo blog, none of those sources are RS. The Atlantic, Vox and WaPo blog pieces are also of the kind where there is no clear distinction between editorial and RS reporting. While they may indicate a little degree of notability, Hughes is not covered at great length in those sources. I've long maintained that Newsweek should no longer be considered a RS, but the unfortunate reality is that it still is. In the Newsweek piece, Hughes' commentary was added post-publication and added briefly at the end of the article. So RS coverage of this individual, beyond a single event, is sparse. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:28, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no requirement that an RS be equivalent to NPOV reporting. See WP:PARTISAN. Given the list I posted above, it's ludicrous to claim that the coverage is "sparse" beyond a single event. Again, I want to reiterate that I believe this is a frivolous nomination motivated by disagreements with the subject's controversial views.Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 17:35, 21 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - If there is a case for deleting this article, I think it would be WP:1E. But I look in the article history and find that the article was created well before Mr. Hughes' very notable appearance before a congressional hearing yesterday.  I think that denying that this meets WP:RS appears to be a matter of wishful thinking.  If this is deleted due to lack of RS, I'm sure it will reappear soon, as the right-wing media will make him a superstar whether one likes it or not.  Finally, there was a concerted effort to shut down this young man yesterday during his Congressional testimony, with open booing of his statements.  I must say, that's a rare event and I wonder—is Wikipedia now going to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with those who want to silence certain viewpoints? Unschool 18:49, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - With regard to WP:1E, Reason described him as "one of the most prolific and insightful commentators on race and class in the United States" back in March, well before the hearing. I also am inclined to think the deletion request is backlash to his appearance before Congress this week. I have listened to and read some of his work before and think the article can be improved to give a more wholistic presentation of his views. I never really saw him as right-wing but more as someone with a different vision of progressivism. IntOMIatrA (talk) 20:00, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 *  I never really saw him as right-wing but more as someone with a different vision of progressivism.. Oh, I totally agree with you, in fact, it should be noted that Mr. Hughes did agree with Mr. Coates' call for reparations for those people still living who were victims of practices like redlining.  He's clearly no ideologue.  My comment ("the right wing media will make him a superstar") was not because I think he's a conservative, but because right wing media love to see African-Americans bucking the Democratic Party. Unschool 20:26, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd just like other editors to note the bizarre timing of the nomination of this article for deletion. It should seem suspicious that in the immediate aftermath of the subject's participation in an extremely notable event (Hughes' testimony before congress) and the wide RS coverage of his involvement (again, two examples https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/19/reparations-slavery-ta-nehisi-coates-v-coleman-hughes and https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/coleman-hughes-slavery-reparations-defense/), only now is his article nominated for deletion. How does that make any sense at all? Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 20:11, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * What exactly is the suspicion? Does it not occur to you that I might have first heard of this guy due to his appearance at that hearing and subsequently checked his Wikipedia, only to find that the whole Wikipedia page was sourced to YouTube videos and op-eds? What is the grand conspiracy? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:16, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It doesn't make sense to nominate a BLP for deletion in the immediate aftermath of an event that has made the subject of the BLP even more notable than he was when the article was first created. In other words, there is more coverage of this individual in secondary sources, not less...and now the subject has "insufficient RS coverage"? Again, this is a frivolous nomination for deletion made because of the content of the subject's controversial views, not his notability. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 21:21, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Reason did not call him that. Nick Gillespie, the editor-in-chief of Reason, called him that. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:16, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comments like this make it really clear to me that you're not acting in good faith. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 21:24, 21 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep subject is notable per sources provided by Global Cerebral Ischemia. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:49, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep this is not a question of WP:1E, because his page existed prior to that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DolyaIskrina (talk • contribs) 18:23, 24 June 2019 (UTC) DolyaIskrina (talk) 18:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - As noted above, the subject was already well known for his published commentary prior to his testimony at the Congressional hearing. Secondary sources are wide before and after the hearing. Easily passes WP:GNG and WP:Basic. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 01:21, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep subject is notable and has enough coverage. Barca (talk) 17:12, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per Global Cerebral Ischemia. Loksmythe (talk) 15:57, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Ta-Nehisi was young once too. At a certain point, no matter how young you are, teh coverage is persuasive. E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:12, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep, per above I find the subject notable with enough coverage Alex-h (talk) 15:39, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Just wanted to add to the discussion on this as I seem very clearly to be in a minority opinion. It seems to me that, as the article currently stands, if you remove the section about testifying to congress, you are left with this line:


 * "Besides writing for Quillette,[6] Hughes has contributed to The Spectator[7], The New York Times[8], and on the Heterodox Academy blog.[9]"


 * To be clear, the sources cited here do not mention the subject directly, they are just articles which the subject has written. Although the subject clearly contributes to notable publications, do we think this in itself satisfies the WP:AUTHOR notability requirements? There are surely countless authors and pundits who contribute to various news and media outlets, however as I understand the notability requirements, this alone is not sufficient to just have articles published.


 * I do see of course the massive list of links which Global Cerebral Ischemia has dumped in the talk page without any context or without actually sharing what each link contains. However, after a cursory look through each article individually, it appears to me that the only reputable sources among those links only mention the subject in passing.


 * I am of course happy to discuss and be convinced, I just want to be sure that opinions are being made based on the actual content and quality of the coverage, and not just on the volume of the link dump above. TheSLEEVEmonkey (talk) 16:42, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You seem to assume that Hughes became notable because he testified at a Congressional hearing. However, my searches showed that this very young man has recently written a remarkable number of opinion essays in places like the New York Times and Wall Street Journal that are notoriously choosy about which op-eds they publish.  Please consider the possibility that Coleman was invited to testify because opinion essays he writes had made him notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:32, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree, this is convincing, however I must admit that I have no idea how the Congressional hearing decides who it does or does not ask. I imagine that in this instance, a primary concern would be getting a wide range of opinions, which would include people with marginal or controversial opinions. I think we can all agree that the subject definitely has controversial opinions. However I'm not sure that being controversial, in and of itself, makes you notable.


 * By way of a comparison, in the UK recently there was a parliamentary committe hearing about (among other things) microtransactions in video games. One of the people asked to testify was Matt Weissinger, marketing director at Epic Games. Weissinger is clearly considered important for this hearing by the committe members, however he is also certainly not sufficiently notable to warrant a wikipedia page about him.


 * For the sake of argument, could we imagine hypothetically if the subject had not been asked to testiy at the congressional hearing? What would the article say and would it be notable? "Coleman Hughes is a writer with controversial opinions who has been published in a number of journals, including..."? Is this sufficient to pass WP:AUTHOR? I would genuinely be interested in the opinion of other editors on this. TheSLEEVEmonkey (talk) 10:13, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:AUTHOR alone cannot be used as notability criteria for the deletion of any BLP (nor can it be used as minimum criteria for inclusion): "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." It is never necessary to justify a BLP's existence by categorizing the subject. However, what can be used as sufficient minimum notability criteria for the inclusion of a BLP are WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Since those criteria alone are all that's required, and the subject easily passes both (as another editor noted above), then WP:AUTHOR is completely irrelevant. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 13:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Well personally I'm yet to be convinced that it does pass WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, even in light of your WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. TheSLEEVEmonkey (talk) 17:00, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I take your point regarding WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, but it's worth noting that I checked each the links above to make sure that they weren't just false hits on user-comments and trivial mentions before I posted them (each source is independent as well). Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 20:26, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Er... WP:OTHERSTUFF aside, the hearing and the consequent coverage happened.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * With regard to the "link dump" posted above, I encourage any editor reading this to actually click and look through each linked article themselves in order to assess the accuracy of the claim that the only reliable sources listed mention the subject in passing. Worth stating yet again for the record, I believe this is a frivolous nomination. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 01:45, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Many While some of the links in the dump are paltry, most are supportive, albeit sometimes briefly, of notability. presumably posted by an inexperienced editor. But Hughes' biography -  youth and ancestors owned by Thomas Jefferson at Monticello has drawn coverage.  Mostly, however, he is notable because his ideas are being engaged with by serious people in the way that makes opinion columnists notable. The Guardian :"Should America pay reparations for slavery? Ta-Nehisi Coates v Coleman Hughes", national Review: "In Defense of Coleman Hughes", "Obama’s black Columbia University brother Coleman Hughes recently followed a stirring rebuttal to McConnell by firebrand writer Ta-Nehisi Coates before the House Judiciary Committee's subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. Hughes amazingly argued that he would actually feel “victimized” if reparations were granted and Americans would be divided. He delivered a performance that surely made the likes of Clarence Thomas, Ward Connerly and Shelby Steele proud.  Scott, Obama and Hughes are not alone in their opposition to reparations. Up to one-third of African Americans are also against the idea. It is a simultaneously odd and understandable statistic.".  The Nation: "Columbia philosophy undergrad and columnist at the willfully contrarian magazine Quilette Coleman Hughes....  Anti-reparations testimony from Owens revolved around the degradation of the black family and the pathology imbued in the term “baby mama.” Hughes lobbed up obscure academic theories on the statistical insignificance of racial disparities found in 2015 Census data that political economist Julianne Malveaux spiked down, referring to young Hughes as a naive, “Kumbaya brother.” ", Newsweek: ''"Coleman Hughes, an African-American writer, spoke against blanket reparations for slavery, citing his own privileged upbringing as a reason he should not receive them despite being descended from slaves. "If we were to pay reparations today, we would only divide the country further, making it harder to build the political coalitions required to solve the problems facing black people today," Hughes said.  These are just the firs few in a gNews search, but I'll finish with the bottom feeders, The Daily Dot goes low: Anti-reparations speaker has a SoundCloud album called ‘My D*ck Works Fine!’, And Even, God help us, the Daily Mail in classic tabloid style:
 * ''"Revealed: 'Presumptive' witness who sparked boos at Congressional hearing for saying reparations would be an 'insult to many black Americans' is also a rapper whose latest mixtape was called 'My D**k Works Fine'
 * Coleman Hughes, a Columbia University student and writer for Quillette, was quickly identified by stage name 'Coldman' after his remarks on Wednesday
 * Coldman came out with an album in 2017 called 'My D**k Works Fine' and also has an EP called 'I am a p***y'
 * For the music video of his song 'Fake,' Coldman runs around New York City in his underwear and at one point raps that 'Jesus Christ is a f***ot'
 * Hughes was one of the few dissenting voices at the 'H.R. 40 and the Path to Restorative Justice' hearing H.R. 40 is a bill which would seek to form a commission that would study reparations and how to successfully implement them for African Americans
 * Audience members booed Hughes as he described how reparations would divide the country even further
 * Subcommittee Chairman Steve Cohen resorted to banging his gavel as the spectators continued booing Hughes, telling them to 'Chill, chill, chill, chill!' "'' That is just the headline. E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * (Edited to reflect that the comment I was responding to has been removed) A reminder of basic guidelines that seem to have been ignored in nominating this article for deletion:
 * WP:NNC "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article" The reason given for deletion above explicitly cites the lack of RS content in the article itself, even though this is utterly irrelevant to any justification for deletion.
 * WP:NTEMP "Notability is not temporary; 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." Given that the article was created before the congressional hearing, and given the unambiguously "significant" coverage of that hearing, how likely is it that the subject is less notable than he was before? Again, two examples- https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/19/reparations-slavery-ta-nehisi-coates-v-coleman-hughes and https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/coleman-hughes-slavery-reparations-defense/ It doesn't matter if Hughes never wrote another article, never did another interview, and disappeared from public engagement for the rest of his life; none of that would have any relevance regarding notability.
 * WP:PARTISAN "...reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs." Contrary to misconceptions posted here, there is no criterion whatsoever that an RS must be equivalent NPOV reporting. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 13:58, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * But engagement with Hughes and his ideas by other opinion makers is what makes an opinion columnist notable, such engagement predating the hearing includes: Charleston Gazette-Mail: Coleman Hughes recently wrote a compelling piece in the online journal Quillette titled “Rethinking Abortion Advocacy,” calling for a more reasoned and logical approach to advocating on the subject. He is critical of the approach both sides take — namely how each seems to want there to be a “bright line” in the identification of legal or ethical personhood..., Reason (magazine): 23-Year-Old Coleman Hughes Is Reframing the Discussion on Race: Podcast; Meet the undergrad who is recovering the legacy of gay, socialist civil-rights activist Bayard Rustin while explicating Kanye West's conservatism., Yascha Mounk in Slate (magazine): Yascha Mounk talks to Coleman Hughes, a young black writer quickly making a big name for himself, about how to fight discrimination against minorities without making group membership more salient than it already is. , Megan McArdle in the Washington Post : In a recent article for Quillette, Coleman Hughes, who is himself black, looks at the data on spending and opts for the cultural explanation. The “fact that blacks spent more on cars, jewelry, and clothes explained fully 20 percent of the total racial wealth gap,” writes Hughes, an undergraduate at Columbia University but already a thinker to be reckoned with. Turning to a 2015 study by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis called “The Demographics of Wealth,” he sees that black people are dramatically less likely to engage in healthy financial behaviors such as “saving any amount of money, paying credit card bills on time, having a low debt-to-income ratio.” Income or education didn’t play a mediating role: When the researchers looked at educated middle-class families, Hughes writes, “the racial gap in financial health-scores didn’t shrink; it widened.”, Conor Friedersdorf in The Atlantic: Coleman Hughes, the freelance opinion journalist and Columbia University undergraduate, asserted that reparations is “something of a misnomer because the wrongs of history are generally too deep to actually be completely compensated.” What reparations should mean, he said, is “a full-hearted recognition that a wrong was committed, that something happened that should not have happened––and more than that, it’s an apology that feels more sincere because you’re attaching something tangible to it, because words are very cheap.” and more. E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:13, 28 June 2019 (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.