Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Monaghan (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. As usual, arguments with a firm basis in Wikipedia policy were given more weight than those that lacked any such basis. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Jeff Monaghan
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Per WP:ONEEVENT. I don't believe Monaghan deserves an article for one event. The article also seems to have undue weight towards the event in general, and little else. SarahStierch (talk) 22:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete I looked at Google books and found three books, all of them sourced from Wikipedia.  This event passes WP:GNG, but lacks historians and biographers taking an interest.  Fails WP:NOT.  If the perspective of history changes, new attention could be drawn to either the event or the person, so either might in the future be appropriate Wikipedia topics.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, reluctantly. I agree with the nomination, especially since the subject committed a questionable action, but unfortunately there is evidence of his being mentioned by two major Canadian TV networks (CBC and CTV) and by a major Canadian newsmagazine (Macleans).   PK  T (alk)  13:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, for several reasons. While the previous delete discussion was closed NPASR, renomination should be based on new arguments, and we have none. It's stated above that it meets WP:GNG, but that it fails WP:NOT. This doesn't seem logically possible; I'm fascinated to know which provision of WP:NOT it fails! Similar logic problems with the claim that while the subject is mentioned in books, these books cite Wikipedia. If these books are considered reliable sources then their choice to cite Wikipedia for this particular topic (or to cite nobody at all) doesn't enter into it. We can't cite Wikipedia, but they can at their discretion, and when we then cite them we're relying on their scholarship not ours. Basically the argument for deletion above seems to be that people shouldn't be interested in the subject; That's exactly the argument WP:NOT most strongly rejects. If others are interested, for whatever reasons, then so are we. That's basically what WP:GNG says, and so agree that this article seems to meet WP:GNG, and that's then a keep. Andrewa (talk) 16:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I said "sourced from" Wikipedia, not that the books "cited" Wikipedia. See Books LLC and General Books LLC.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Links would make it clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewa (talk • contribs) actually I did sign it below, but you do need to follow the indenting to see this Andrewa (talk) 12:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Try searching on Google books for ["Books LLC" "Jeff Monaghan" OR "Jeffrey Monaghan"]. Unscintillating (talk) 14:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Sounds like the previous argument to keep is because there are three books on Google books that have copies of the Wikipedia article. See WP:CIRCULAR.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it's not. It puts several arguments. One of them (only) is that the previous argument, that there are three books (I assume that means only three, a link would be good) in Google Books and all are sourced from Wikipedia is unpersuasive. I obviously didn't put this very clearly, and it's a bit difficult as that claim is rather vague. Is there reason to believe that they use no other sources? There may be. Is there any other reason to discount them as reliable sources? There may be. Again, links would help a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewa (talk • contribs) actually I did sign it below, but you do need to follow the indenting to see this Andrewa (talk) 12:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:CIRCULAR is a link. It is a logical fallacy that refuting a refutation of a hypothesis is evidence of the hypothesis.  The way to build consensus is to do your own search on Google books and provide examples of books that support the argument to keep.  While doing this search, you may find books that are published by either Books LLC or General Books LLC.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree that this would be a logical fallacy, but it has not been committed above. Suggest that an even better way to build consensus is to share the results of your research by links, rather than expecting others to repeat it, and avoiding possibly misunderstanding of precisely what search was done. Andrewa (talk) 12:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * See WP:What Wikipedia is NOT #2. Unscintillating (talk) 00:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. But that section lists four possible reasons for regarding a topic  as not encyclopedic. Do any of the four particularly apply here, in your opinion? Andrewa (talk) 02:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "#2" has five sentences, not "four possible reasons". But now that you mention it, #1 and #3 are also related.  Wikipedia editors, especially in this discussion, also need to be aware of the "See also" here.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Quite right, I missed the #2 in your above comment. Let's look at #2 first... the example given is routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities. That's nothing remotely like what we have here. Andrewa (talk) 12:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CharlieEchoTango ( contact ) 09:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Delete per WP:BLP1E. He doesn't seem to have done anything newsworthy other than leak some documents. All but one ref is from May 2007, and the latest is from a May 2008 report into the earlier events, which indicates a lack of long-term significance.  If there was a merge target I would say merge, and if the event he was involved with met WP:EVENT then we could turn this into an article on the event. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 05:45, 22 September 2012 (UTC)




 * Keep, I found this page useful while researching anarchism in Ottawa. --206.47.30.182 (talk) 00:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete, Per WP:ONEEVENT. As for the event being turned into an article, it hardly qualifies under any section of WP:EVENT. 14:55, 24 September 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Szabotage (talk • contribs)
 * Delete Does seem to fail the one event provisions - I can't see anything that points to notability beyond the single event that is the basis of the article. There is significant coverage of him in relation to the event, but the BLP policy still speaks against creating an article where we can't provide proper context in a living person's biography. I'd feel differently if there was any sign of substantial coverage outside of his arrest, but I can't seem to find anything. - Bilby (talk) 06:28, 27 September 2012 (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.