Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jordan Chariton (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. There is a consensus that, if Chariton was not notable before, additional coverage since the last AfD is sufficient to make him so. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 20:52, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Jordan Chariton
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article was deleted after AfD on 30 April 2017. The page was re-created on 26 June 2017 with no reason given. Just as in the first AfD, the individual is still not notable (unless recent allegations have made him so, which seems unlikely), and the article is just unreferenced junk. Bueller 007 (talk) 11:36, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2017 November 22.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 11:54, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Keep - not because Chariton is not notable. He probably is. Politico says, "a prominent face of the YouTube-native program and a rising star in the left-wing media sphere. There simply aren't any reliable independent sources given to support a BLP. I added the infobox, when I saw how scant the references are. Rhadow (talk) 16:06, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 16:03, 22 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep The firing has now been reported by reliable sources (such as Politico), and I have added them to the article. Of course, he was already notable before the firing. Thus, I see no reason why the article should be deleted. Davey2116 (talk) 07:30, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep The initial reason for deletion was a lack of sufficient coverage by reliable sources; this has changed and notability is not temporary. Likewise, the recent event surrounding allegations of misconduct by the subject are not actually the only thing that Chariton is known for, meaning this can't qualify as a one-event article where a person is being presented as nothing more than a belligerent in a single event. The increased coverage of the subject also means that it would no longer make sense for information regarding Jordan Chariton to be a side note of the article on The Young Turks. This article's continued existence is now in compliance with Wikipedia's policies on notability, which was the original reason for deletion and the re-nomination. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 21:45, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete a non-notable low level journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:57, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment With regard to policy, what constitutes "low level?" The subject passes every bullet point of WP:GNG. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 21:06, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Since you can't produce any substantive reason for deletion, I can't help but believe that you want this page deleted only because the subject opposes your own political viewpoints. Davey2116 (talk) 21:12, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm surprised that someone who has previously purposefully vandalized articles under AfD consideration can still !vote on AfD discussions. As User:Trackinfo attests here, User:Johnpacklambert has done this many times in the past, leading to deletion of content that he never bothered to try to improve before !voting. Davey2116 (talk) 22:45, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * With the amount of times John Pack Lambert has performed bad faith edits to vandalize an article he seeks to delete, such as replacing the bullet point "money out of politics" with "end of free speech" and replacing an entire well-sourced paragraph with "seeking to destroy free speech" just as Bueller is trying to effectively delete the article during the nomination to delete the article, I'm genuinely surprised that they aren't blocked from editing because this is clearly  POV-charged vandalism. Articles should be nominated for deletion out of a genuine concern that they go against our policies and out of a belief that removing them would make Wikipedia a more collegian and objective encyclopedia. There are policy reasons to delete even notable articles, but all they've provided is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 23:01, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * With the aforementioned incident I obviously made a mistake not to pursue action against JPL. I thought long and hard about the protracted fight ahead and just didn't want to have to go through it.  It still does not diminish JPL's total lack of credibility.  His serial thoughtless delete votes are one of the worst things about wikipedia.  Closers should observe the same editor voting delete on an entire day's *fD nominations and discredit all of them, but they don't.  The malicious editing is nothing less than vandalism.  And, apparently he has taught the wrong lesson to other deletionists; apparently they now feel emboldened to damage an article first, then nominate it for deletion.  Why not drive a car into a wall then tell us its damaged?  Watch for this technique to happen more often and it is more dangerous when used in the hands of POV oriented editors.  Thank you Davey2116, I didn't think anybody else was paying attention. Trackinfo (talk) 04:41, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I understand your reasoning in not wanting to pursue action against JPL; it's unfair that, to fix this problem, editors like you who actually contribute to improving Wikipedia have to sacrifice time and effort to deal with those who don't. What you said during that incident about his one "strong delete" !vote having undue sway over the discussion is very accurate as well. I had thought at first that what happened in that AfD discussion was a fluke, just plain bad luck, so I didn't notice anything awry until you pointed out that he had done this numerous times beforehand, and now I'm seeing it happen again myself. I hope that, now that we're noticing these deletionists' methods, they will be dealt with soon. The act of nominating an article for deletion or !voting in the discussion without first attempting to improve the article violates the deletion guidelines, and these users' tendency to do precisely this on articles that they disagree with simply goes one step further in disregarding the rules that ensure a collaborative environment. Davey2116 (talk) 19:56, 25 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment To the AfD nominator, purposefully sabotaging the article and reducing it to a total of ten poorly sourced sentences is not how you get more delete !votes. I say this not as an attack but as a plea for consistency and respect for policy: the author of underdeveloped non-notable articles should not contest the deletion of a two-sentence stub while nominating the deletion of more notable articles for the same reason. If the cited problem with the article is that it is "unreferenced junk" you cannot in good faith start eliminating the sources that we had. 22:02, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Completely agreed. The nominator's actions are a violation of both policy and, if the improvement of Wikipedia is in fact the shared goal, common sense. Davey2116 (talk) 22:45, 24 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep- Well before the sexual allegations, Chariton had already achieved notoriety as a reporter. I added sources that go outside of the TYT bubble.  His sudden firing brought further notoriety, albeit negative.  Even the Daily Caller from clearly the opposite political perspective covered his firing and related controversy.Trackinfo (talk) 03:39, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep-Chariton has notoriety based on his being a contributor for MSM news organizations and TYT, his firing and the articles covering the controversy further the notoriety. The controversy of his firing also is notorious in relation to the firing or resignations of other men who have been accused of similar acts. Davidpdx (talk) 15:23, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Chariton was a very popular, esteemed part of the TYT Network for a long time. He rose to special prominence in 2016 for his coverage of Standing Rock water protest and DNC/Podesta email leaks. At the very least, I think the allegations against him have been newsworthy enough to justify this article. At the very least, there ought to be a TYT Politics page. But I think Jordan, as the main face of TYT Politics for a substantial period of time, is notable enough for his own page.Geekyroyalaficionado (talk) 03:53, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete As per the AfD only a few months ago. The article was reinstated against policy after the community weighed in; the article should remain deleted lest we just ignore standard practice and embrace anarchy at WP. Sexual assault allegations are the subject's biggest claim to fame according to mainstream sources (heading a Young Turks sub-channel that isn't notable enough for its own page, that isn't mentioned in RS, doesn't meet notability requirements currently, just as it failed to in April). If the allegations become noteworthy enough, a new page dedicated to that story should be created. But a non notable, unekployed journalist is not encyclopedia material.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   06:54, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per Petrarchan47. He wasn't notable a few months ago and not much has changed, except he now has sexual assault allegations levied against him. Most of the sources are primary, others just aren't reliable. I wouldn't be opposed to redirecting to The Young Turks, as we recently did with his TYT counterpart John Iadarola.LM2000 (talk) 07:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Did CNBC, Observer, Salon, RealClearPolitics, TheWrap, The Intercept, Heavy.com, Daily Caller, New York Times all become unreliable?  Or just for this "me too" delete vote?Trackinfo (talk) 08:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, Chariton is clearly notable enough for you two to come running here to cast delete !votes without even attempting to improve the article. Davey2116 (talk) 08:22, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * CNBC, Salon, AdWeek, TYT, Medium and The Wrap are primary sources. He either worked for them (and the source is about his employment) or actually wrote the articles we use in his own article. He's not even mentioned in the NYT piece, that's about the wider Weinstein effect and was published a month before his allegations surfaced. There's some reliable coverage of his reporting on Standing Rock, Flint and the DNC, but that wasn't enough to push him past the GNG bar a few months ago. Since his notability as a reporter is dubious, we're left with half the article detailing assault allegations. WP:NOTNEWS is an issue, but there are BLP concerns as well, especially since we rely so heavily on unreliable sources like The Daily Haze and The Daily Caller. needs to assume good faith, I regularly edit TYT articles.LM2000 (talk) 08:46, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * In response both to both of LM2000's posts: While he was employed at eight media outlets (nine if truth against the machine counts), we've got over twenty sources, many of which came from outlets that Chariton was never employed at nor had connections to. This demonstrates that we've got not only primary but secondary sources. I don't view the article being half about the allegations as particularly problematic as the real problem would be if it was a WP:SINGLEEVENT violation, whereas we've got as much information on the course of his career as we do the termination of it. You are right that Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, but after rereading the actual text of WP:NOTNEWS, I'm questioning which bullet point you're actually referring to because there doesn't seem to be any violation of said policy, leaving no policies cited by your counterargument for deletion. I'm sorry, but I don't feel that you've provided a compelling case for deletion yet. We have reliable, verifiable, secondary, independent, presumed sources. That's everything detailed in WP:GNG, if you believe the subject is still below the "GNG bar" I request some elaboration on why. You've listed the policies but when actually reading the text of these policies there doesn't seem to be an issue, so I can't say you've actually invoked any policy guidelines that make this article problematic. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 14:02, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Last response, there's no need for a rockfight on an AfD that will likely be kept anyway. Is Chariton a notable reporter? No, we decided that not long ago and he hasn't done any significant reporting since to change that. Does Chariton have "enduring notability" for being accused of sexual misconduct? It was in the news recently (second bullet), but I don't think so. I understand and respect where you're all coming from, but I'm staying at delete keeping BLP concerns in mind. We have to take great care when creating articles about figures with dubious notability after they appear in a news story for a few days. The bullet points of his career remain at the main The Young Turks article, so I still think a redirect is the best option. Cheers.LM2000 (talk) 15:54, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * In response to the comment regarding the second bullet of WP:NOTNEWS, it says nothing about being in the news recently but rather what follows: "While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." This means that news reports on routine day-to-day things such as a game of sports or the lives of celebrities fail to meet our guidelines for inclusions. The fact that this article's subject was recently covered in the news doesn't go against that in any way. As for the WP:BLP concerns brought up during this discussion, the three criteria for articles on living persons are as follows: 1) verifiability 2)  neutrality 3) avoidance of  original research. I've yet to see any elaboration on how this article does not meet those criteria as we've already shown that we have both primary and secondary sources for verification, we haven't given undue weight to any particular perspective, and there's certainly no original research. Several policies have been cited throughout this discussion, but these citations were incomplete as thus far there has been no effort to mention the ways in which the article's text and the policies' text were incompatible and when reading these policies it doesn't take long to find that the article passes all of them. I do respect where you're coming from and I believe that you are acting out of good faith, but I don't believe you've offered a good case for deleting the article and redirecting it. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 01:39, 28 November 2017 (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.