Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg Scarlatoiu (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 redirect to Committee for Human Rights in North Korea.  MBisanz  talk 00:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Greg Scarlatoiu
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

We went through this before, in May 2014. Basically, the subject is a functionary in a relatively minor think tank (five employees) who occasionally gets quoted in the press on North Korea human rights stories, but really no other coverage. (Note that the part about his background, education and early career is entirely uncited.) Nice job and all, but nothing here says "notable for an encyclopedia". - Biruitorul Talk 02:35, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete While media citation as an expert is one of the prongs we can use to show an academic is notable, I do not think we have enough on him to justify passing that criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep or Merge to U.S. Committee for Human Rights in North Korea, the organization he is executive director of. I think there's probably just enough to pass WP:GNG for him, but deletion doesn't make sense if we have an article about his organization -- an article that mentions him several times and even includes a photo of him. Here are some of the news stories, etc. I'm seeing in which Scarlatoiu plays a non-trivial role: Telam, UPI, Weekend Edition Sunday (NPR), The Diplomat, Think Progress, Washington Post, The Diplomat, Alphr, Borgen, Nguoi Viet, DW, MarketWatch, Daily Beast, DW, and there are a lot of sources at nknews.org that apparently I can't access because I have "no free posts remaining" (despite never, to my knowledge, using a free post -- eh). Adding in the brief quotes/mentions, he's been quoted by basically every major news organization. Importantly, the links above are only from pages 1-4 (of 20) of a Google News search for his name. The real question is whether the information about him would make more sense in the organization's article. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 13:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Try as I might, I fail to see the non-trivial role in the links you've mentioned: they all more or less limit their discussion of the subject to the following sentence: "Greg Scarlatoiu is executive director of the Committee for Human Rights in North Korea". By all means, let's mention him at the HRNK article - only he already is mentioned, to the extent warranted by the sources. But I'm certainly not seeing anything in the way of significant coverage about the subject himself, as opposed to his being quoted speaking about his area of expertise, which by itself isn't significant coverage. - Biruitorul Talk 15:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * "Try as I might" would typically involve clicking on them :P That very first link there is an article about him. Several others are interviews with him (not just interviews as part of a story, but interviews that are themselves the article). His name runs throughout many of the non-interview articles. The weakest one is probably the Washington Post, which quotes him as one of the authors of the HRNK report, then refers to "the authors". So go ahead and discount that one. I don't know why you're saying these are all "Greg Scarlatoiu is executive director of the Committee for Human Rights in North Korea", but regardless of whether you think he's notable, that's just not an accurate representation of what I linked to. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 23:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Just so there's no ambiguity, I've boiled down all mention of the subject in all the links you provided (save one, more on that in a moment):
 * Greg Scarlatoiu, executive director of the Committee for Human Rights in North Korea, told.... Scarlatoiu said.... according to Scarlatoiu.... Scarlatoiu also said.... I'm joined by Greg Scarlatoiu. He is executive director of the Committee for Human Rights in North Korea.... Greg Scarlatoiu, executive director of HRNK, said.... Scarlatoiu told.... Scarlatoiu said.... according to Greg Scarlatoiu, who heads a Washington, DC-based advocacy group called Committee for Human Rights in North Korea.... Scarlatoiu said.... Scarlatoiu said.... To Scarlatoiu.... According to Greg Scarlatoiu and Joseph Bermudez Jr..... Greg Scarlatoiu is the Executive Director of the Committee for Human Rights in North Korea. He has written and spoken extensively about North Korean human rights issues as well as political, security, and economic issues on the Korean Peninsula. He recently spoke with.... the director of the Committee for Human Rights in North Korea, Greg Scarlatoiu, stated that.... Scarlatoiu said.... Scarlatoiu’s comments.... Greg Scarlatoiu, Executive Director for the Committee for Human Rights in North Korea (HRNK).... said Scarlatoiu.... said Scarlatoiu.... According to Scarlatoiu.... Scarlatoiu highlighted.... Scarlatoiu surmises.... said Scarlatoiu.... said Scarlatoiu.... explained Scarlatoiu.... Scarlatoiu estimates.... Scarlatoiu emphasized.... Scarlatoiu warned.... Scarlatoiu highlighted.... Scarlatoiu underscored.... Greg Scarlatoiu, executive director of the organization.... Scarlatoiu said.... Scarlatoiu believes.... Scarlatoiu believes.... Greg Scarlatoiu of the Committee for Human Rights in North Korea and Joseph Bermudez Jr. of AllSource Analysis.... Here’s Scarlatoiu and Bermudez’s theory.... Greg Scarlatoiu of the Committee for Human Rights in North Korea.... Scarlatoiu says.... Greg Scarlatoiu of the Committee for Human Rights in North Korea.... Greg Scarlatoiu.... Greg Scarlatoiu, executive director of the Committee for Human Rights in North Korea.... Scarlatoiu said.... according to Scarlatoiu....
 * As you can see, the vast majority either identify who he is or quote him, no more. As for the Télam source, two thoughts arise. One, the fact that a man who's lived for years in Washington, DC (not exactly a place bereft of media) might only draw significant coverage in Buenos Aires (!) says something about his perceived notability in his current hometown. Two, no, the article in question isn't even about him, and doesn't cover him in depth. It's about the class system in North Korea, and has maybe two background sentences about Scarlatoiu. Thus, I'd say the case for notability remains unproven. - Biruitorul Talk 05:00, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Err. Notability is not just about "background sentences". Someone can be notable as an expert in a subject, for their research, for their ideas, for their publications, etc. By your logic someone could be on the front page of every major newspaper and the lead story of every magazine, but if it's only because those newspapers ran interviews with them to learn more about what they know, then those sources are just brief mentions? Two, no, the article in question isn't even about him, and doesn't cover him in depth. - It's another interview -- a story via his research. There are two large images in the piece, and both are of Scarlatoiu. When a newspaper/magazine finds someone important enough (via their knowledge/research or otherwise) to run an interview with them, that's not a brief mention. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 13:10, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I find the "argument from photographs" (now invoked for the second time) laughable, though I must applaud its originality - never seen in before.
 * And again, the fact that a man who's lived in DC for years can garner no non-trivial coverage in the Post, The Hill, Roll Call or Politico, not to mention (even if not everyone considers it a real newspaper) The Washington Times (which happens to be linked to the fervently anti-communist, South Korea-based Unification Church), but that instead we need to go all the way to Argentina (a country to which he has no discernible ties) to find barely-more-than-trivial coverage, classifies this as a case of special pleading. By any normal standards, in-depth coverage of the subject is non-existent. - Biruitorul Talk 16:57, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete -- still irrelevant per wikipedia norms, nothing has changed. Dahn (talk) 07:34, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   19:14, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. A person does not get over Wikipedia's inclusion and notability rules by giving soundbite in articles about other things, nor even by giving a lot of soundbite in a lot of articles about a lot of other things — a person gets over Wikipedia's inclusion and notability rules by being the subject of enough media coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. But little to no sourcing which satisfies that latter standard has been shown here; it's all glancing namechecks of his existence as the giver of soundbite in articles whose subjects are other things, and that's not how a person clears the bar. His name can be mentioned in the article on the organization he's affiliated with, sure — but none of this satisfies GNG to the degree needed to earn standalone BLP separate from being mentioned in the organization's article. Bearcat (talk) 21:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to U.S. Committee for Human Rights in North Korea. He is quoted a lot. That's not sufficient to earn him his own article. However, he is executive director of an organization which passes the notability bar. He is covered (to an apparently appropriate depth) in that article. And his name, because he is quoted frequently in the press, is a plausible search term. I cannot discern any reason why we would opt for literal deletion rather than a redirect to the article which suits our readers' inquiries in a policy-compliant manner. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:33, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * A delete vote is not inherently incompatible with a redirect — there is no rule that if an AFD closes as "delete" then the title has to permanently remain a redlink and can never be recreated as a redirect to a related article, but rather a redirect can be created from the redlink in exactly the same manner as any other plausible search term. But in a case like this, we need to delete the article and then create a redirect if that's desired, because there's no value in maintaining the edit history behind the redirect. Bearcat (talk) 17:07, 24 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete or redirect per WP:BIO1E, no evidence of notability independent from U.S. Committee for Human Rights in North Korea. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Committee for Human Rights in North Korea; the subject does not appear to be independently notable per available sources. At this time, this is a vanity page and a resume in the form of a Wikipedia article. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:20, 5 October 2016 (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.