Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evan Greer (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 keep. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 00:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Evan Greer
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

Removed CSD Tagging, clear case of WP:ADVOCACY, had been deleted several times before in the last years, the singer itself has 0,00% notability, all sources are pointing to the politics goals of the organization "Fight for the future". CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:39, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:39, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - I'm not sure proposer has even read the article - he originally tagged it as 'pure vandalism' and once that was removed seems to be AFDing this to make a point. What the Advocacy he claims is in the article is - I'm baffled - anyone? Subject is BLP covered in multiple independent realiable sources including The Guardian, Rolling Stone, Fast Company.  Cameron Scott (talk) 09:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Seriously? Almost the entire content of the article -- all in your words -- is about activism. "As an author, Greer has written on a range of topics including online culture and political activism." "Greer called it “an open letter to transphobes." Greer notes that 'Big Tech companies’ business models are based in surveillance, and they’re fundamentally incompatible with basic human rights and democracy." "Greer noted in interview with Fast Company it was also intended to raise aware of the control of corporations such as Spotify over popular culture."  Claiming that you have no idea what the nom's talking about is disingenuous at the level best.   Ravenswing      11:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * they were all added after the nom - even then WP:Adovacy is about using articles for activism not a bar on writing and quoting activist.Cameron Scott (talk) 12:51, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. Describing someone's social or political positions is not the same thing as endorsing them or using Wikipedia to promote them. Of course, we have to write carefully to make sure we're on the right side of that line, but that's a matter for ordinary editing to resolve. AfD is not cleanup, etc. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep While there are a bunch of sources on the page now that just mention him in comment, there are plenty of WP:SIGCOV. Article could actually be built out significantly more. Redoryxx (talk) 17:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes - I just stuck them in quickly for this AFD but will continue to build out using them. Cameron Scott (talk) 18:30, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:GNG; the sources in the article have enough material that the article could be significantly expanded. The previous AfD's appear to be from 2005, long enough ago to be obsolete in the face of changed circumstances. Writing a biographical article about an activist isn't WP:ADVOCACY. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I've done some quick edits for prose flow and reducing footnote clutter. The string of a dozen references at the end of the first paragraph is now down to 4, after redistributing them to places where they are more specifically relevant and removing a duplicate. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Total and complete activst rubbish. He is not at all notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:12, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * it is she or they. Cameron Scott (talk) 21:05, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

*Weak Delete: The refbombing is insane here; this is one of the highest ratios of references to actual content I've ever seen on Wikipedia, and there is no bloody reason for twelve supporting references for a simple, uncontroversial statement of fact. Further, while the sources are reliable, I'm not sold on SIGCOV: they are interviews of the subject, quotes from the subject, or capsule reviews of the subject's recordings, none of which counts towards notability of the subject. I'm not opposed to keeping it, but there needs to be significant improvement in the article. Articles need to be created with the intent of adding valid content to the encyclopedia, rather than a sub-stub of four terse sentences accompanied by admitted reference bombing to stave off the deletionists. My mind can be changed here, but without significant improvement in the course of the AfD, it won't be.   Ravenswing     20:18, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * What do you think now? Cameron Scott (talk) 13:52, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Improved enough to no longer advocate deletion, anyway.   Ravenswing     08:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep and Clean Up (significantly) - The article is a mess of shameless refbombing and hideously written sentence fragments. There is already an article for Fight for the Future so this one does not need to repeat anything about them. This article should focus on Greer's music and writing, which have gotten some reliable reviews and other coverage, and the article could be expanded with text from that coverage. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 14:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, based on wide coverage and over 47,600 followers on Twitter. It does need editing, but not TNT level. Bearian (talk) 01:46, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:GNG based on amount of news coverage. We should probably improve it a bit and add an infobox. Lesliechin1 (talk) 21:11, 19 April 2021 (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.