Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Allsup


 * 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. The nominators arguments about sources appear to have consensus  DGG ( talk ) 18:55, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

James Allsup

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Precedent from WP:POLOUTCOMES indicates that the subject doesn't seem notable for their political action. The other coverage doesn't seem to confer notability to Allsup himself than it does the greater movements that he is complicit in (eg the wall at UW being the focus of several of the sources, with the subject offering short comments in them). To elaborate: → Σ σ  ς. (Sigma) 07:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Students For Trump is not a reliable source that establishes notability.
 * The Daily Evergreen is a vehicle through which Washington State University's Office of Student Media is dedicated to providing students a public forum. It has limited value as an independent source in establishing notability, as it is natural for the university's media organ to report on events involving the university itself. Allsup is featured in this article through three quotes, alongside other quotes by students involved with Students For Trump; the article itself concerns the movement, not Allsup.
 * Allsup is featured in this article as a passing mention as campaign manager for Roemer, who is the subject of the article. Roemer is not yet elected to the Washington House of Representatives; WP:NPOL states that an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability barring other coverage. Allsup does not have coverage in independent, reliable sources in the context of being Roemer's campaign manager.
 * KOMO appears to be a reliable source, but Allsup makes only a brief appearance with two short comments in this article that is about a larger-scale reaction against a school's policy on Twitter, not about Allsup.
 * Students For Trump is not a reliable source that establishes notability.
 * the gathering was organized by the WSU College Republicans, of which Allsup is president; it is a trivial passing mention that does not establish notability for Allsup.
 * Vance said James Allsup, president of WSU College Republicans, invited him to WSU to speak; it is a trivial passing mention that does not establish notability for Allsup.
 * Though the use of search engines and the like is noted as a litmus test for significance, Twitter is not a reliable source that establishes notability.
 * Routine documentation of election data does not contribute to notability. WP:POLOUTCOMES says Losing candidates for office below the national level who are otherwise non-notable are generally deleted.
 * The Seattle Times is a reliable source that would establish notability if the subject of it was the subject of this Wikipedia article. However, it provides more evidence of notability for Trump's Wall and the Trump movement in general than it does for Allsup himself.
 * Similarly to the Seattle Times article, this source is about Trump, not Allsup.
 * Similarly to the Seattle Times article, this source is about Trump, not Allsup.
 * This article by the Seattle Weekly, which appears to be a reliable source, is titled The UW Trump Movement Is a Perfect Microcosm of the Donald’s Ridiculous Campaign and describes an analysis of the Trump movement on US university campuses. The article, ultimately being about the Trump movement, attributes two quotes to Allsup, which constitutes a passing mention.
 * A registration form is not a reliable source that establishes notability.

I'll try to get to as many of your points as I can.

1: The students4trump.com site is the web domain that acts as the hub for the Students for Trump organization and its social media presence- over 55k followers on Instagram, 29k followers on Twitter, etc. The source is as reliable as can be expected for a political organization.

2: Due to the nature of where Washington State University is located, and the notability of Washington State University as a top 10 journalism school in the United States, The Daily Evergreen is the most widely distributed newspaper in the Moscow/Pullman metropolitan area of the United States. While it is a student paper, it serves as a primary source of news for many of the area's non-student residents, and has qualified for and won many national journalism awards including the College Media Association Apple Awards, Society of Professional Journalists Mark of Excellence Awards, Columbia Scholastic Press Association Gold Crown Award, and others. A full list is available here: http://www.dailyevergreen.com/site/awards.html

3: Per point 2, the Daily Evergreen should be considered a reliable source. Reliability of Allsup being Roemer's campaign manager will be addressed in point 14.

4: Allsup is featured prominently in the video posted accompanying the article. Allsup was also the one to create the Change.org petition as featured in the article which was the catalyst for the chain of events.

5: See 1

6: This article alone is not justification for the article, but speaks to the variety and volume of Allsup's work in political organization within the state of Washington.

7: See 6

8: The page linked contains no mention of Twitter, as such, a Twitter search seems like it should be compliant- I may be misinterpreting you however. I could edit the sourcing of the article to include individual Tweets that identify Allsup as the catalyst for the movement if you prefer.

9: See 6

10-13: The source(s) is/are about an event which Allsup directly organized. Speaks to the same points as point 6.

14: The registration form in question is a legal document sourced directly from a .gov domain. This C1 form fits all definitions of a source as outlined in sections 1.1-1.4 of the RS page. Not seeing your objection here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wsmedia (talk • contribs) 09:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response. I'm a bit short on time so I can't respond as well as I'd like, but when I say that they're "not reliable" I don't mean that the information they contain is suspect, I mean that they don't demonstrate that Allsup himself is the one who should merit the article; see the notability page for details. My concern over the Daily Evergreen is that it's already closely involved with the things that happen an WSU and Allsup himself is already closely involved with the things that happeen at WSU, so it's not exactly independent; due to its close affinity with Allsup it's not much more than WP:SELFPUB, as Jergling noted below. But anyway I help that cleared something up. → Σ σ  ς . (Sigma) 16:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Mostly local coverage except passing mentions from the national org for which he works. At least one spamblog ref (IBT) mixed in there. Most of the sources are effectively WP:SELFPUB due to their relationship with Allsup and his organization. Irrelevant DotGov links thrown in to obfuscate the poor sourcing. Looks like someone trying to game the system, and now we have a WP:ISU/WP:ORGNAME account commenting to defend the article. Jergling (talk) 14:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete: Yeah, I'm not seeing it. Where are the reliable sources giving the "significant coverage" to Allsup that the GNG requires?  Not to the organization he doesn't actually lead, not to quotes he's given (it's well established that quotes from a subject cannot be used to establish notability of the subject), not to a candidate that doesn't herself qualify for an article, not to a school club to which he belongs, to Allsup himself?  They aren't there.   Ravenswing   07:01, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That is right. In a word, my objection is that none of the sources are actually about Allsup. → Σ σ  ς . (Sigma) 05:13, 30 July 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.