Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erich Reimer (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 delete.  Sandstein  10:55, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Erich Reimer
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This individual is not notable, and the article has already been deleted once for a lack of notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.204.205 (talk) 00:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note Fixed malformed AfD. Copied reason from article talk page. I am neutral in this AfD. Hhkohh (talk) 14:00, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 14:15, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 14:15, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 14:15, 29 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. Nothing stated here is an article-clinching notability claim in the absence of a WP:GNG-passing volume of media coverage for it — but the sources aren't getting him over GNG. Almost all of the references are unreliable sources, primary sources, pieces where he's the bylined author of content about himself or other things rather than the subject of coverage written by other people, or glancing namechecks of his existence as a giver of soundbite in coverage about other things — none of which supports notability at all. Literally the only source here that represents coverage about him in a reliable source is a piece of local coverage in his own hometown media, which is not enough coverage to clinch nationalized notability. Bearcat (talk) 17:24, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Above comment does not accurately describe the profile articles already on the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:40, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does. I personally looked at every single source on offer, and I'm not a person who needs lessons from anybody in what's a reliable source and what isn't. Bearcat (talk) 20:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)


 *  Keep WP:TOOSOON'''. 1st AfD was 10 years ago, so it's not gonna throw much light on notability of an active political commentator. The fact that he has 47,000 followers on twitter induced me to take a closer look at the sources already on the page. Article was started by an IP and AfD was started by an IP. Unusual.  There is a 2017 profile of him in an online publication TheBlaze:  Millenial opens up about his remarkable journey from Democratic activist to Republican stalwart.  And another, also 2017, in the college newspaper U.Va. Law student to serve as Chair of Charlottesville Republican Party. A 3rd profile in a large, regional daily., Fairfax Times, puts him over the top: One local Millenial’s switch from Democrat to Republican.  and a 4th in the Washington Examiner: UVA student launches Trump-themed campaign for student gov't.  Oh, and a short writeup in the Charlottesville paper (UVA is in Charlottesville,) describing his campaign for student body government as a parody of the Trump campaign: Make UVA Law great again. passes WP:SIGCOV. E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:40, 29 November 2018 (UTC) Perhaps it is a little too WP:TOOSOON, for a student commentator who will probably merit a page after he completed his JAG Corps service and begins his legal career.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:18, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The Blaze is not a reliable source, it's Glenn Beck's thing. College newspapers don't assist in building a GNG pass, and neither do short blurbs about student government campaigns. Bearcat (talk) 20:17, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The fact that I am not a Glenn Beck fan does not negate the fact that TheBlaze contributes to notabiity. As to undergrad newspapers, to a small degree. And the Washington Examiner. Not to mention the Fairfax Times a large-circulation regional daily serving the college town where subject was in law school.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:41, 29 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Note that Reimer has entered the JAG Corps and, according to this: More Americans Must Serve – And Now I Will, will not be publishing while he serves. I also Note that the profiles contain biographical info from which a decent article can be built.21:34, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - Person has been in media and entertainment/acting with meaningful audience and roles, per WP:ENT. Also seemingly significant third-party media reporting on person per WP:BASIC and WP:GNG, with some national reliable sources “focused” on person rather than just as part of a broader narrative (such as POLITICO). Potential too under WP:Politician (local). Article was approved through WP:AFC review process (by editor Chetsford) though it seems to not be fully up-to-date (for example, a Fox and Friends segment focusing on him is not present among other seemingly frequent third-party, although of varying national applicability, focused coverage). 96.82.14.234 (talk) 23:14, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete Apparently I approved this at AfC but I'm not entirely sure what I was thinking at the time. Only a handful of those sources where he has received significant coverage are RS. The status of The Blaze is not really open for debate here as it's already been determined by consensus not to be a RS. Had I to review this over again I probably would neither have approved it nor rejected it but have left it for someone else to look at. The sources unambiguously establish that this person is a real, living human but mere proof of existence is not sufficient for a WP article. Further, a person can appear on 1,000 episodes of CNN Morning Express and Fox & Friends and that doesn't establish notability if they're only there commenting on things, versus being the subject of commentary. And campus newspapers may be fine to source facts, but certainly not to establish notability. That said, the Fairfax County Times is a good source, but the Washington Examiner is not because it covers him within the context of a political campaign which is addressed in WP:NPOL. It is very much on the edge but I'm leaning - though just barely - to weak delete. Chetsford (talk) 23:29, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - I am with on this one. As far as his appearances and his journalism, the entire article is sourced to WP:OR. I would say this is a good source but its only one and local. I would vote for the Blaze being reliable (I don't agree with all their views, but they do employ fact checkers - no matter how bad they may be), but consensus is against me so it wouldn't count. In the end, this is original research without significant coverage. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:51, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete: Non-notable subject. Fails WP:BASIC, as well as the additional criteria of WP:ANYBIO, WP:AUTHOR (self-published book), and WP:POLITICIAN (school and college don't count nor future aspirations. There is weak support under WP:ENTERTAINER (political and financial commentator/writer) but pretty much is the extent of actual notability claims, which I don't see as enough significant coverage and I am not sure where the "actor" credentials come from, but edges me past "weak delete" to "delete". Otr500 (talk) 07:13, 7 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Comments to support above "delete" rationale: Citation overkill on two sentences, that the subject was a "state party official in Virginia" (5 sources) and "Chair of the Charlottesville City Republican Party" (5-sources), of which neither advances encyclopedic notability. The Johns Hopkins press release where the subject entered school, and the self-published (Amazon) 38 page micro-booklet, are all signs of deception of notability. Being a local politician would mean that the local paper (ran for Student Bar Association vice president and Student Council representative) would cover a subject or events regularly. If allowed that as a criterion for notability then every town and county (parish) politician could have an article but they have been routinely deleted. Supposed claims (two references) of being a "political commentator" in a WJLA report (RNC renews support for Roy Moore amid allegations, polls hint at a GOP victory in Alabama) with comments (total of two paragraphs) from the introduced as "Conservative political commentator Erich Reimer". It is buried almost in the middle of the article. The next reference to this is an article from the "Friendly Atheists" (Conservative Blames Atheists for Forcing Courthouse to Remove Religious Phrase) where the subject is introduced as a "conservative commentator". On a search Twitter (@Erich Reimer) has him listed as: "Policy strategist, financial host, lawyer,columnist. Entrepreneur and actor. Background in gov/finance/tech.". Forbes might render some notability but it is a self-contributed and includes "I run a DC-area policy strategy firm..." and "I am President of Nueva Horizons LLC...". This leaves the DC-area Townhall commentator as any "claim to fame" or notability.


 * This is a case where combined trivial mentions are stacked to overwhelmingly advance notability. More than half the references are just that (ref stacking) and I stopped when it became evident article referencing is presenting far more notability than is factual if just considering reference count. I don't consider having 47,000 followers on Twitter as a "proof of notability for a worldwide encyclopedia. An ability of a subject to self-write a book, get an article on Forbes, and use Facebook and Twitter to an advantage for "getting his name out there" does not make them notable for any specific reason other than being good at self-promotion. Otr500 (talk) 07:13, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   12:11, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete — I see a lot of cite overkill, especially in the section regarding his political career, but little in adequate, in-depth sources to pass GNG.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:09, 7 December 2018 (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.