Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Peterson-Perez


 * 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. Feel free to renominate this page if it does not qualify Wikipedia standards.  Whenaxis  about talk contribs 23:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC) Non-admin closure.

Mark Peterson-Perez
Update - There is an issue with the name of the individual. According to the author the correct spelling is Mark Petersen-Perez, not Mark Peterson-Perez. Rather than complicate the AfD I have moved the article Mark Peterson-Perez to Mark Petersen-Perez. red dog six (talk) 16:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * – ( View AfD View log )

Minor activist lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:BIO. The article references appear to be passing mentions of the individual. red dog six (talk) 16:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply comment - I added several front page news stories direcly about the individual in response to the "minor activist" and "passing reference" objection. Ghits and Gnews hits are lacking because the main sources are not online. PPdd (talk) 22:39, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Each of two sufficient WP:BIO conditions are met - Petersen-Perez (1)"has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,and independent of the subject", OR (2) is "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". Either one of these would be enough. In fact, both hold. (1)is established in the reference section list in the article. Quotes were provided in the references to show that the article subject is the same as the source subject. The second sufficient condition is met since the first four sources are recorded front page news stories directly about Petersen-Perez. WP:BIO is satisfied. PPdd (talk) 01:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - I see no evidence of any significant front page or any "significant coverage" of the individual in reliable sources. The sources you have added to the article are basically passing mentions of the individual.  You are correct that the individual need not be national to be notable, but to be notable he must meet the criteria in WP:BIO or an associated WP:NOTABILITY guideline.  The article still appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:GNG.  red dog six  (talk) 06:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I added four front page news sources directly about the subject in response to your comment. PPdd (talk) 22:33, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Side comment - The original apparant lack of any GHits is partially due to offline sources, and also partly my own fault since I originaly spelled the name in the article title wrong. PPdd (talk) 03:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - I only see 36 GHits and 1 GNEWs for "Mark Peterson-Perez" and 57 GHits and 1 GNEWS for "Mark Petersen-Perez". red dog six  (talk) 06:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I get "About 2,900 results (0.08 seconds)" for "Mark Petersen-Perez" and "About 118 results (0.09 seconds)" for "Mark Peterson-Perez". With the incorrect spelling, I get "1 result (0.24 seconds)" for "Mark Peterson-Perez", and "1 result (0.31 seconds) "for 'Mark Peterson-Perez'".
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –MuZemike 21:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)




 * Delete. The subject appears to fail WP:BIO. I also have concerns regarding WP:SOAPBOX and the application of WP:NOTNEWS to a biographical article. Piecing together factoids (i.e. true but insignificant information) of individuals from local news articles is not enough to pass the various notability guidelines. Location (talk) 22:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply comment - I removed WP:Soapbox and WPNOTNEWS put in by a new editor. I have substantially changed the article since its creation (under a different subject title), which did indeed have a WP:UNDUE number factoids. But the only "factoid" now in the article is that he is a financial analyst. PPdd (talk) 00:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * First of all, let me state that the term “factoid” was not meant to be derogatory to the subject or his work. The point is that more than newspapers mentions are necessary to establish a person’s notability. This is particularly true when the individual is not the actual subject of the newspaper reports AND when the newspaper reports are confined to a small geographic region (a city in this case) AND when there is a distinct lack of other types of published sources. If this were allowed, it would be possible, for example, to create articles for every high school coach or athlete who gets a blurb in the local rag for his or her accomplishments at last night’s game. I guess an argument could be made that they should be mentioned in Wikipedia, but I think it's fair to say that the consensus would be against it.
 * Secondly, I agree that a subject does not necessarily require “national significance” to be notable, but I think the broader point was that not all verifiable information is acceptable for inclusion in Wikipedia since it considers the enduring notability of persons and events and caters to a wider audience. This article states that the subject “is a LOCAL government watchdog, political activist, financial analyst, and publisher of the online Palo Alto Free Press”, "is a LOCAL political advocate for the homeless”, “well known LOCALLY for using the local platforms of communication and petition for redress”, and “well known to persons who attend Palo Alto City Council meetings.” [Emphasis mine.] Not all subjects need to have national significance to be considered notable, however, that does not mean that subjects with only local significance are notable. Location (talk) 04:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * 1. Why are you calling the newspaper articles now included"mentions" of him, and saying "the individual is not the actual subject of the newspaper reports"? (Your comment might have been written before I added the articles directly on him, so we can strike this part of the discussion if it was.)
 * 2. "Local" is in no way a necessary consideration in WP:BIO. A historian researching local platforms of petitioning the local governments would want an encyclopedia that has information on notable persons in this area. Whether or not that person later achieves notability on a different level of government would be irrelevant to such a historian using the encyclopedia. PPdd (talk) 00:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: Local news is not enough. If he was really of national significance, there would be other coverage. SL93 (talk) 14:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply comment - WP: BIO does not require "national significance". Recording in the news is sufficient per WP:BIO. PPdd (talk)

*Keep - Anyone who values the First Amendment and the freedoms associated with this should take notices of Petersen-Perez. The current mayor of Palo Alto continues too warn Petersen-Perez not to criticize government officials by individual name during public city council meetings. Petersen-Perez often sites New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) as the hallmark of his defense. The right to caustic criticism of government employees and few if any, are willing to stand up to government officials in this regard.
 * Let me remind all of you that the first amendment was not designed to protect favorable speech, favorable speech needs no protection. Furthermore, those who have become significance dissenters in the deletion of Petersen-Perez should perhaps think again in the matter of forever silencing(deleting)or censoring this mention.ManicalCritic (talk) 17:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC) — ManicalCritic (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment - Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX. None of this is a criteria for inclusion into Wikipedia.  Unless the individual meets the criteria in WP:NOTABILITY or any of its associated sub-articles, then it does not belong in Wikipedia.   red dog six  (talk) 17:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm not liking nor am I suggesting Wikipedia to be a WP:SOAPBOX as you have implied. This is pure talk / debate as this forum suggests and a fundamental first amendment right to do so.  What's next?  The suggesting and recommending that my comment(s) be removed?ManicalCritic (talk) 18:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC) — ManicalCritic (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment - Sure looked like that to me. This AfD is not the place to discuss the merits of free speech, it is the place to discuss the merits of the article and if it meets the criteria for inclusion.  If you wish to discuss free speech I suggest you go to WP:FREE (or feel free to ping me on my talk page) and not assume that I would even consider removing your comments.  I also suggest you read WP:AGF and use this as a guideline for your further comments rather than just assuming the worst.  My best to you.   red dog six  (talk) 19:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - ManicalCritic is a new editor. PPdd (talk) 04:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - I believe new editor ManicalCritic is unfamiliar with WP:BIO, but intended to argue the principle contained in it for notability. I.e., that the subject of the article is "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". The new editor's "keep" argument can be rephrased in WP:BIO terms, Mark Petersen-Perez is "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded", and in fact was recorded in the newspapers, because of a very "unusual" attempt by the government to have a court take away an inalienable (i.e., a court can't take it away) First Amendment free speech guarantee of the right to petition. In this way, per WP:BIO, the new editor's keep argument is "a criteria for inclusion into Wikipedia", using Reddogsix's wording. PPdd (talk) 00:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - WP:BIO's standards. "Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on the encyclopedic suitability of an article topic. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded".[1] Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular"—although not irrelevant—is secondary."


 * "Worthy of notice" Clarence Earl Gideon was a person worthy of notice, why because he refused to become a part of the status quo. His actions caused a shift of the entire judicial system as we know it today. And he started out as a single voice.


 * "If an obscure Florida convict named Clarence Earl Gideon had not sat down in prison with a pencil and paper to write a letter to the Supreme Court; and if the Supreme Court had not taken the trouble to look at the merits in that one crude petition among all the bundles of mail it must receive every day, the vast machinery of American law would have gone on functioning undisturbed. But Gideon did write that letter; the court did look into his case; he was re-tried with the help of competent defense counsel; found not guilty and released from prison after two years of punishment for a crime he did not commit. And the whole course of legal history has been changed." Robert Kennedy


 * Petersen-Perez did not sit down. He stood up before local politicians to redress his grievances and concerns head on, and in the process lost four jobs.


 * Petersen-Perez without any legal experience nor background filed a similar petition, but in his case, before the California Supreme Court in defense of his first amendment rights to criticize government officials. Case Case No: S174520 What is "worthy of notice" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" in that, in filling his petition we no of know other private citizen or persons to have been found to challenge a municipal government attorney on First Amendment issues.ManicalCritic (talk) 17:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 00:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)




 * Keep Comment - As a leading anti-taser activist and publisher, as copious sources indicate in a quick swing through cyberspace. That he is an individual of local fame (or infamy, depending upon one's politics) is neither here nor there. This article got PRODded by the nominator less than 4 hours after creation and the edit history shows a complaint that the nominator also pulled off a CONSTRUCTION banner by the creator just 37 hours after last edit. I'm left wondering what is the rush here... I've been to Palo Alto a number of times; it's not a po-dunk berg in the middle of nowhere, but rather a significant city that is part of the San Francisco bay area, so complaints of "local only" coverage should not be give excessive weight. The article does have serious style issues, but I believe that this is essentially a subject worthy of encyclopedic biography. Carrite (talk) 16:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I want to emphasize that this article has serious content problems, to the extent that I'm striking the Keep and making it a Comment. I can see the viability of blowing this piece up and starting over at some point in the future. I do still believe the subject is encyclopedia-worthy, however. Carrite (talk) 16:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Carrite, could you specify any content problems you think still need addressing to change back to a keep vote? Did these edits address your concern? Thanks. PPdd (talk) 03:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Comment - Dave Price the publisher and editor of the "The Daily Post" has a Wikipedia page. A significant portion of the The Daily Post a local, "free" paper is filled with regurgitated stories already posted online and elsewhere in addition to the verbatim press releases of the local city government and police department.  Sprinkled in are a few very good stories of local interest only.   Mr. Perez is as notable if not more than Mr. Price regarding public interest.  Mr. Perez has created an online news source when any person can publish their stories, much like wikipedia itself.  Mr. Perez publishes in depth, investigative stories regarding the corruption of government which the public needs to be made aware of, something that The Daily Post does not do.  You could say that Mr. Perez is a mini "WikiLeaks."  As time goes on, Mr. Perez's bio will continue to grow as the public becomes more aware of the invaluable service he is providing the community and society.  Keep Mr. Perez's Wikipedia page. 16:39, 30 December 2011  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.9.237.73 (talk)


 * Keep, I don't think it can be disputed that Peterson-Perez (or however his name might be spelt) is a notable figure in the politics of a significant city. With that said, the current state of the article is really awful and in my opinion the entire thing needs to be scrapped and rewritten with NPOV in mind.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC).
 * Keep No real concerns over notability but serious concerns over POV. Article needs to be re-written from a more neutral point of view. Pol430  talk to me 16:21, 1 January 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.