Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conor Williams


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 16:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Conor Williams

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Was voted "next great pundit". Okay, well that doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. Seems to fall under NOTYET, and probably WP:BLP1E. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 16:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.33.76.93 (talk) — 156.33.76.93 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Ah yes, I forgot that Wikipedia editors have an irrational exuberance for deletion on tenuous grounds. It's been awhile since I've done anything here (and now I remember why). If winning a month-long contest in one of the top two publications in the nation (and thus giving him a regular OpEd column there) is not notable by recent Wiki standards, so be it.  It looks like you don't have the previous winner either, Kevin Huffman (ex-husband of the surely notable Michelle Rhee). Bmortimer (talk) 16:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Does this sound like a notable topic to you? Conor P. Williams (born April 1, 1983) is a PhD candidate at Georgetown University in Political Theory. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 16:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to get in to a "Philosophy of Wikipedia" debate with you. I think his winning the "next great pundit" competition is notable.  It's a big competition.  There's press about it.  So I put in a stub in.  You don't think it's notable and want it deleted.  Whatever.  Bmortimer (talk) 17:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  --  Jujutacular  talk 17:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Non-notable newspaper award winner, coverage is from (duh) the newspaper, a university blog, a circular's blog, another blog and the local podunk newspaper.  WP:GNG failure. Tarc (talk) 18:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:GNG. He's nothing more than a student who won a newspaper contest.  If/when he actually becomes a media figure and "pundit," he'll merit an article. Qworty (talk) 19:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Racepacket (talk) 20:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not Facebook. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC).
 * Delete. Some explanation may be helpful here. Winning a contest (as opposed to an award), even a fairly high-profile one, is not necessarily sufficient justification for notability because it's typically a one-time event without a larger significance. That seems to be the case here. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 22:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC).
 * Delete: I couldn't say about "exuberance," but something I do believe to be irrational is the ongoing tendency of even some veteran editors to presume Wikipedia's definition of "notability" to be "I think the guy is noteworthy." This, of course, is not the case.  Just FYI, Bmortimer, the community has indeed changed its consensus on a few rules here and there over the last five years, something in your absence of several years no one would blame you for not knowing.    Ravenswing  18:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I found this page after reading Conor William's op-ed in the Post, wanting to know more about him. To me that qualifies the page for inclusion. 14:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * By winning the competition, he became a pundit already . . . he's writing a bunch of articles for the Post. Seems like people who read him there will want to know who he is. Not really a one-off like most competition winners.
 * 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.