Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Fagan (educator)


 * 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. Will restore to user space or draft space upon request, if someone commits to continue to working on it to address the issues raised during this discussion. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

David Fagan (educator)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I have serious concerns about this page. First of all, it appears Mr. Fagan does exist, and at least some of the information in the article is verifiable from published sources. However, the bulk of this article is cited to this webpage which claims Mr. Fagan "agreed that the students could mount a Wikipedia entry about him," which entry was reproduced on that page. The bulk of the text of this article and that one are identical. This one was created first, and it seems they copied us, meaning this isn't a copyvio but is a particularly egregious example of circular referencing. That page also says that, "Informed consent, an audio recording, and extended paper documentation for the interview are available at the Woodson Research Center, Fondren Library, Rice University." and it provides a link to, which gives a result of page not found. A search on that website for "David Fagan" yields no results So it seems this article is largely based on original research consisting of an interview with the subject by his students who then wrote the Wikipedia page, which was copied to the Houston ARCH website, and then the Wikipedia page proceeded to cite its mirror as a source. Next, most of the rest of the sources cited in the article are dead links. At least one sentence in the article (concerning the school he taught at) appears to be inaccurate. I'm able to find several mentions of him in various magazines and websites focusing on athletics in the gay community, but they are passing mentions, not enough to build an article around. He seems to be at least marginally notable, and I hesitated to nominate this for deletion, but I really don't think this article is salvageable. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 17:09, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I promoted the page while working Category Stale Drafts . It is impossible to make headway there if you try to fix every page you find. I appreciate editors like ONUnicorn who consistently dig into topics like this and improve articles. As ONUnicorn also found, the subject appears marginally notable but I agree the page has issues, and if the issues can't be resolved, I trust ONUnicorn's judgement here. Legacypac (talk) 17:28, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:35, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:35, 28 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Insufficient indication of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:28, 28 May 2017 (UTC).
 * Delete, circular references are not indicators of notability, because Wikipedia is not an RS. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 02:43, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 04:05, 29 May 2017 (UTC)


 * This should be restored to User:Ben.zarsky/David Fagan (educator) as opposed to deleted if it is found unsuitable for the mainspace per WP:UP/RFC2016 (B4), i.e. If a draft is moved to the mainspace by a user other than its author, then found to be unsuitable for the mainspace for reasons which wouldn't apply in the userspace, it should be returned to the userspace (move). — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 03:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:46, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:46, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * if demoted to userspace it will then be eventially CSD'd as a NOTAWEBHOST violation, G4 as recreation of material deleted in a deletion discussion, or sent to MfD as promotional for covering a non-notable topic or maybe just blanked. Article made it to AfD and needs to be fully dealt with in AfD, not shoved off so more editors can waste more time on the topic. Legacypac (talk) 04:53, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - GNG not met. Moving back to user space would be pointless - as stated above, this article is from a stale draft. Exemplo347 (talk) 07:32, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Searches do no reveal substantial notability in any mainstream source. Banglange (talk) 10:27, 5 June 2017 (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.