Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Wiegand


 * 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   no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 03:06, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Joe Wiegand

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable person. Received coverage for performing at the White House once; none of the other references are third-party (either the subject's website, a press release from an organization that hired him to speak, the Youtube channel of a production company that hired him...) Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete. As much as I admire a college-trained political scientist who has built a solid career based on a resemblance to Teddy Roosevelt, I don't see much coverage outside of the mighty Sacramento Bee, and that only in passing. I just don't see the requisite significant third-party notice. If better, more in-depth references are found by the end of five days, I'd happily change my !vote. Gotta love the idea of a Teddy Roosevelt impersonator, notable or not. --NellieBly (talk) 19:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. I find substantive profiles of Wiegand at WBEZ (2008)   and the Buffalo News (2010), as well as a number of briefer mentions at GNews . --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. The statement by Roscelese that "none of the other references are third-party" is not really accurate. Wiegand has been reviewed by the following newspapers and publications that I've located. News Enterprise. (2010) 09-04-2010 See also The "Daily Beacon" at the University of Tennessee, (2010)   also "The Mountain Press" at [www.themountainpress.com] 22 April 2010
 * Here is are some videos of Wiegand - see for yourself and tell me that this person is "non-notable!" See Ok - Weigand is not a left-wing admirer of TR (I am) but he IS significant in that he's done TR in all 50 states and is positively reviewed and continues to be called in by all kinds of private and public organizations across the Country to portray the 26th US President. SimonATL (talk) 03:13, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Sorry, he does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Google News search finds only a single article about him, from the Sacramento Bee, along with dozens of articles about other (apparently more notable) people named Joe Wiegand. As for the references at the article, his performance at the White House is documented by press release type articles at the websites of the White House and his own college. All the other references are self-referential and not acceptable as sources. --MelanieN (talk) 02:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * MelanieN, did you note the additional substantial profiles--WBEZ and Buffalo News--that I cited above? --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 05:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Per the sources identified by Arxiloxos which I was also able to find by adding the name "Roosevelt" to the Google News Archive search, which filtered out the similarly named people who don't impersonate Teddy Roosevelt. The fact that other people are named Joe Weigand and have received some news coverage is completely irrelevant to this discussion, as no one has written articles about them that could be nominated for deletion.  Good Google search skills separate the wheat from the chaff, and we are debating this Joe Weigand, not another one.  I don't know what makes a newspaper "mighty" but the Sacramento Bee is, I believe, an eminently reliable source, as are several of the other sources identified. Cullen328 (talk) 06:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Agree that fact that other people are named Joe Weigand and have received some news coverage is not relevant to this discussion. While it may not be the New York Times, or the Le Monde, the Sacramento Bee is, an "eminently reliable source." Wiegand is obviously not "insignificant.
 * Did some source checking over the weekend. Let's consider the statements behind the initial decision to suggest deleting the Wiegand article. "Non-notable person.

1. "Received coverage for performing at the White House once." Discussion. Coverage of the performance was given by multiple web sites. For example, the Northern Illinois University covered his performance here: []. I re-read the article and noticed that a few months ago, more information was added to the article nothing that organizations such as the Oregon History Center, covered Wiegand's appearance there and also mentioned, after the fact, (not by way of promotion) that his performance was received by young people. 2. "None of the other references are third-party." Discussion. Reason 2 is clearly inaccurate as cited by several editors as the Sacramento Bee is a 3rd party source and as a daily newspaper and web site passes the "eminently reliable source" test as well as several other small local and regional newspapers with their associated web sites including several universities (See the above noted "Daily Beacon" at the University of Tennessee, (2010) and also "The Mountain Press" at [www.themountainpress.com]and several towns such as the "News Enterprise," (2010) 09-04-2010 . No more time to discuss. Please make a decision sometime soon. Thanks! Searcher4001 (talk) 15:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The Oregon Historical Society source is not independent and thus does not attest notability; it's a press release from an organization that hired him to speak, they have an interest in promoting him. Newenterprise.org does not appear to exist, much less to be a reliable source, and student newspapers do not attest notability. It's also disingenuous to pretend that I'm just ignoring a vast multitude of independent sources; at the time I nominated the article, none of the other references were third-party, and - guess what - at the time I write this, still none of the other references are third-party. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:54, 5 July 2011 (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.