Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juan (street protester) (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. Very clear consensus to delete. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 02:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Juan (street protester)
AfDs for this article:
 * Articles for deletion/Juan, crazy screaming guy
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a clear BLP1E, a biography of a living person known for only one thing. The sources are two local alternative newspapers. The article was prodded soon after its creation in 2007, then sent to AfD at Articles for deletion/Juan, crazy screaming guy and kept with the closer advocating a rename; it had already been moved to Juan (homeless man) the day after it was nominated. Seeing the article mentioned at a Wikipedia criticism forum, I searched for sources and found no indication he has achieved enduring notability (people have asked in forums such as reddit what happened to him, and this 2014 blog entry in The Urbanist gives a detail the article doesn't have, that he used to eat lunch in Nordstrom's, but also describes him as no longer seen on the streets. That is a brief mention of him as an example. The "Street Asylum" article that is our first reference, which I found at a different URL and date during my search, has him as its primary focus (and also includes his lunches) but again as an example. There is no scope for expanding the article into a proper biography, and it does not appear he has either continued to attract coverage (compare for example Larry Hogue, whom we mention at 96th Street (Manhattan)) or become known for anything else, and he does not appear to have been covered by a major newspaper, so under BLP, I do not believe we should violate this man's privacy any further by keeping this article. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:43, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per Notability. The primary complaint here is that he does not have "enduring notability". Wikipedia doesn't require enduring notability, in fact endorsing the opposite. Once notable, always notable. This person was a regional fixture for a significant amount of time - that's why the coverage is regional. You can disparage the sources as simply "alternative newspapers" but the writers, editors, and publishers of those papers are major figures in journalism that have won Pulitzer awards for biographies and write for New York Times. The Stranger ís a major paper in Seattle. While it appears that his notable time is in the past; it is Wikipedia's job to document the past. BLP1E refers to singular events, not long term fixtures. (From everything locals know, but not published, this isn't a BLP anymore.) SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 20:56, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per this source and this one, and all the other sources. Koridas (...Puerto Rico for statehood!) 01:56, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Per WP:BLP "human dignity": unverifiable claims that the subject is dead are clearly of no relevance here, any more than they are in any other policy-based argument. This sort of vacuous crap may apparently have been acceptable in a 2007 Wikipedia, but it doesn't belong in a 2020 one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:18, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per Notability, "While notability itself is not temporary, from time to time a reassessment of the evidence of notability or suitability of existing articles may be requested," and Yngvadottir's well-reasoned deletion rationale explains why a reevaluation is needed here. Whatever the standards were when this article was written, it does not meet today's notability requirements, which have since been strengthened to ensure a high standard for biographical articles, which are not met here. Simply put, the existing sources do not provide enough detail for a proper biographical article (we don't even know the subject's name!) even assuming that an argument could be made that they are exempt from WP:BLP1E. Run-of-the-mill local coverage is not sufficient to meet WP:GNG requirements. 28bytes (talk) 03:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. For the purposes of BLP1E and GNG, I don't think mentions in local alternative weeklies counts as significant coverage in reliable sources. This isn't coverage in the Times, Post, Globe, et al. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 22:56, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and User:David Fuchs. - Darwinek (talk) 00:16, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete and WP:TROUT or worse the article creator. jps (talk) 11:11, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete as little more than a hit job on someone who neither deserves or wants an article. Also per ජපස, as one couldn't, frankly, do more to hasten the day, etc., than defend this WP:BOLLOCKS. serial   # 14:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - Sources are insufficient to establish notability for a BLP. Only one is about Juan. Three others only mention him in passing or in minor detail. One is a deadlink that points to a 2002 article about cycling, not sure why it's there. ♟♙ (talk) 19:01, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete a local level street protestor who has gained passing notice from the press but nothing in the way of significant coverage. The fact we do not know his name is as I think about this more and more a bigger and bigger problem. This in many ways comes down to an attack article against someone who probably has a mental illness. The source is not even the main paper of record for the local area. Wikipedia should not be in the practice of perpetuating poor journalism.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:27, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - Poorly sourced, sources of dubious utility (not even giving his name!), limited local interest only, BLP issues, etc. Carrite (talk) 20:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Before it was fixed up, it was a borderline A10. Per Carrite, 28Bytes, DavidFuchs, and nom.... No need to keep this cruel monument. Moneytrees🌴Talk🌲Help out at CCI! 20:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete A local issue that has not much coverage.Nika2020 (talk) 18:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Per all but one of the above. Wikipedia is trying to be an encyclopedia, not a midway sideshow. Qwirkle (talk) 21:32, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Seems an overtone from 4-chan /b/ culture from c 13 years ago. We have had BLP since; this seems to have slipped through the net. It might be an idea to look at other articles the original "author" has created in the past. We have copyright investigations, why not grossly offensive, near trolling, BLP shattering investigations. Ceoil  (talk) 21:53, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable. The sole "keep" Interpretation that our notability criteria confers infinite notability is grossly wrong. The notability criteria is that topics will have lasting notability regardless of their coverage here. This topic fails our notability criteria now, in the past and in the future. I also echo the concern that this is possibly a trolling article. Snow delete. ConstantPlancks (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:42, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - pointing and laughing at the homeless isnt really a good look for Wikipedia.  nableezy  - 23:29, 22 May 2020 (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.