Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Alahverdian (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. I see that there are concerns about sockpuppetry in this discussion, but on the substance it seems like the various GNG-based claims of notability have been only weakly contested even if the "Harvard University alumnus" notability claim has not gained much acceptance. The BLP1E point is somewhat less clear but it hasn't received enough support to make a deletion consensus. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:23, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Nicholas Alahverdian
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The previous AfD took place in 2013 but the updates in this article don't seem to address the lack of notability. ... disco spinster   talk  14:31, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:02, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:02, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:42, 14 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep He was also an author who attended Harvard University He wrote: Dreading and Hoping All He was also published in the Providence Journal. Seems to have non-trivial coverage. Quebec Tribune, and again Quebec News Tribune. My opinion is non-trivial SIGCOV exists. It is concentrated on the East coast, New England, but that is not a concern for our guidelines. Lightburst (talk) 21:42, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * He was also an author who attended Harvard University What part of that statement goes toward notability? Are Harvard Grads notable now? Praxidicae (talk) 21:52, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I guess that was just something I inserted in there because it is impressive, and independent of WP:N. However the man has quite a bit of non-trivial coverage. Lightburst (talk) 22:59, 14 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Nothing has changed since the last AFD, no new sources, or at least no actual coverage of him exists. Praxidicae (talk) 21:53, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I am compelled to disagree with your claims that "nothing has changed", that there are "no new sources" and there is "no actual coverage." I am not sure how you reached that conclusion when the current article, when compared with the 2013 version, has been heavily edited and improved (and continues to be thanks to the help of other Wikipedia editors finding additional sources), multiple sources have been added (see: here, here, and here for example), and this obviously consists of "actual coverage". Your statement is false. The article has been improved and enhanced, there are many new sources, and there is a considerable amount of "actual coverage." Tkfy7cf (talk) 16:11, 15 November 2019 (UTC) — Tkfy7cf (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep Sources cover from 2002 and remain relatively constant for nearly two decades from major news organizations including newspaper, radio, tv, and online. Both US national and regional media have covered him, he is a published author, a published opinion writer for the nation’s oldest continuously published daily newspaper (providence journal, I used to work there), and his whistleblowing contributed to massive calls for reform at the troubled state dept of children youth and families. Bubbasax (talk) 23:41, 14 November 2019 (UTC) — Bubbasax (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete Subject of article fails as per WP:GNG because he clearly lacks WP:INDEPTH significant coverage in reliable source. @ when did being an Harvard Alumnus constitute notability? Furthermore article calls him an author and he surely falls short of WP:AUTHOR. Celestina007 (talk) 08:42, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * May I remind you that WP:GNG consists of the following "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Have you bothered to read the significant WP:INDEPTH coverage? And since when are major newspapers and NBC and CBS affiliates not reliable sources? Let me help you with the following examples of significant coverage from reliable sources: here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Your statements are false. There is extensive, significant coverage and there has been for 17 years about this man. The aforementioned articles prove significant, sustained coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject and thus it is "presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article" per WP:GNG. Tkfy7cf (talk) 16:22, 15 November 2019 (UTC) — Tkfy7cf (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep Meets WP:BASIC, WP:GNG, and WP:INDEPTH. The length of significant coverage and the depth of coverage in reliable sources of this man meets the WP:GNG and WP:INDEPTH guidelines as a result of sustained and constant news coverage in mainstream media since he first appeared in The Providence Journal in 2002 (seventeen years is arguably a sustained amount of time). A further, cursory search shows appearances in the Associated Press, The Providence Journal, The Daily Herald, Politifact, WPRO Radio, the NBC-CBS-ABC affiliates, PBS, and The New Haven Register. WP:N regards a "topic [that] has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" is notable and it is "suitable for a stand-alone article" (see WP:Notability) (emphasis added). I have found additional sources and will help add to the article when I have a moment. Fifthavenuebrands (talk) 10:08, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: I have updated the article, sourced it with content up to 2018, and have attempted to fill in the gaps. As Lightburst and Bubbasax have said, the mainstream news media sources for him go all the way back to 2002 and has steadily continued until 2019. 17 years of coverage is clearly significant. The coverage is significant and non-trivial, and it is constant and substantial. Said coverage includes multiple articles in the Associated Press, NBC, CBS affiliates, The Boston Globe, The Providence Journal, The New Haven Register, and many others. The 2011 Associated Press article alone was published in over 100 newspapers around the world according to the Associated Press. Prior claims that "nothing has changed" should be clarified now as a result of my research and work to make this article better than I found it. I agree that work needed to be done and sources had to be found, especially, recent ones, but I've done that. As a result I now believe that the article meets WP:BASIC, WP:GNG, and WP:INDEPTH even more now that I've updated the article and added the additional sources, stories, and news. Fifthavenuebrands (talk) 12:36, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your assistance in researching this important topic and helping to bolster the evidence and sources for the article. Tkfy7cf (talk) 15:56, 15 November 2019 (UTC) — Tkfy7cf (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep See: WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." The topic, Alahverdian, has received sustained significant coverage from the Associated Press, The Providence Journal, CBS WPRI 12, NBC WJAR 10, The New Haven Register, GoLocalProv, The Boston Globe, and other news entities. The aforementioned news organizations are "reliable sources" -- unquestionably. Further, they are clearly independent of the subject. To deny otherwise is to insult the journalistic integrity of the reporters who have authored the articles that form the backbone of this wikipedia article. Beyond this, the subject of this article is considered a writer in his own right, his opinion having been published in New England's second largest daily newspaper after the Boston Globe. Seventeen years of sustained, detailed coverage with articles that are about this man and do not mention him just in passing are sure to be sufficient to meet the criteria for significant, sustained coverage. To say that there has not been sustained coverage and to claim that there is insufficiently significant coverage is to admit that the sources, links, archives, and research by myself and others has not been adequately analyzed by those who are making those erroneous judgements because, as one can see, the articles are numerous, detailed, historic, and cumulatively meet the criteria for WP:GNG. Indeed, I repeat: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. To say otherwise after 17 years of coverage with exclusive articles written by award-winning journalists at multiple media entities is to ignore the evidence presented in the sourced article. Tkfy7cf (talk) 15:53, 15 November 2019 (UTC) — Tkfy7cf (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * keep because he is a leading advocate for foster children and foster care alumni throughout the united states. i have followed his inspirational story as a foster child myself, and when he spoke to my class at my university, we were in awe of his strength and resilience. Numerous articles including this one from Providence Journal and this one from an Ivy League student newspaper and all of the other news articles, news videos, and radio talk shows listed on the wikipedia articles justify the guidelines for general notability as I've read them on this site. Fencemenders (talk) 18:05, 15 November 2019 (UTC) — Fencemenders (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * CheckUser Note Several of the accounts that have contributed to this AfD on the "keep" side are single-purpose accounts. Even "Fifthavenuebrands", who I have not tagged as an SPA here, has very few contributions outside of this AfD and a slew of pro-forma "delete" votes on other current AfD debates. I have performed a CheckUser on several of these accounts, discovered that they were using VPNs or proxies to edit, and have blocked those VPN / proxy services. The closing admin may wish to take this into account. ST47 (talk) 19:44, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note I do use a vpn, and I apologize if that's not allowed, I was not aware. However, I have been given feedback on the correct way to use wikipedia (apparently editing and deletion voting is for experienced users) and I am in the process of implementing that. Thank you for the information. I wanted to contribute the best I could but perhaps I'll just sit back and learn a bit more. Thanks again. Fifthavenuebrands (talk) 00:07, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , Everyone can edit Wikipedia, and you are most welcome to do so and also to !vote and express your opinion here. It is true that if you make a mistake we will let you know!ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:28, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete can someone explain why exactly he's not a WP:BLP1E? SportingFlyer  T · C  09:18, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * ReplyBecause there are criteria for WP:BLP1E that are not met here. This is not one event, this is twenty years of sustained, significant coverage from multiple reliable secondary sources. The first article published about him was April '02. The coverage has remained since that point in time, and has ranged from his lawsuit (one event), to his lobbying and advocacy (an entirely separate event), to his political advising (another event), and other events as documented in the article (yet more events).  Also see WP: What is one event? -- This is not 15 minutes of fame. This is nearly two decades of sustained significant coverage about someone who has had many roles documented and validated by news sources and other evidence.  While he may have been a litigant in a newsworthy case, he was also written about in reliable news sources for his legislative advocacy, for the abuse he suffered at the hands of the state (which is a separate event, covered by multiple national news sources including the Associated Press and Politifact, among others), for inspiring the filing of multiple bills to stop the practices (also covered in the news, yet another event, his work as a political advisor (also covered in the news and another event), his work at Harvard (also covered within the context of articles), and his work in other fields (as included in the article).  This is the antithesis of "15 minutes of fame." This is not, as the guideline states, "a single specific act that has taken place with a defined beginning and end, which may last for a second or two, or multiple days". In short, back in 2012 it was said of this man, and this is quoted in the article, that "“regardless of what happens in federal court or at the State House, Alahverdian has left his mark. Night-to-night placement has been ended forever. And Manatee Palms, the Florida facility where Alahverdian experienced so much abuse, is no longer used by DCYF. Alahverdian, I have to believe, had something to do with those changes.”" He clearly has had an impact on state policy and practice, and while he has left his mark he has also engaged in other newsworthy events that have been properly sourced and meets the bar set in WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." I believe I can say without contention that this topic has received significant coverage. Reliable sources independent of the subject have been provided (Politifact, AP, NBC News affiliate, CBS news affiliate, Boston Globe, Providence Journal, Rhode Island State House Press Office &c).  This has been over seventeen years of news coverage about multiple events and thus fails WP:BLP1E. It is thus "presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article" see WP:GNG. Tkfy7cf (talk) 11:19, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. As noted above by Lightburst, there’s a significant amount of in depth coverage. The article is well sourced with solid research. From what I saw, there were exclusive articles covering the person on a variety of topics. One topic I found that was not included was the ABC/Fox news coverage of his successful attempt to secure a proclamation honouring the Armenian genocide when that city had never done so in the past. He is also a lobbyist and in this role he has been covered separately in the news, both national (US) and international. He was also a litigant in a high-profile case that was rooted in his whistleblowing on abuse and neglect in a state foster care system as a government employee. this also carried exclusive news articles about the man. There are many sources and articles that justify WP:GNG since as we know, “a person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.” Here we have significant coverage from the last two decades with articles appearing rather frequently. It is clear that the article covers a broad array of news coverage surrounding multiple topics, and this isn’t just about one event or even a brief sailing into the spotlight. While primary sources are used, they are used rarely, and the article heavily relies upon news articles published by Boston Globe, Providence Journal, New Haven Register, CBS, ABC, NBC, and multiple other reputable, noteworthy outlets. Some articles are even accompanied by the news stories that aired in addition to the online articles. WP:BASIC states that “If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.” So we see that not only do we have multiple in depth coverage-qualifying stories, but we also have multiple independent sources that are combined “to demonstrate notability”. Seeking an excuse to say this article’s sources are trivial isn’t realistic. The news orgs I mentioned previously did in-depth coverage on this subject, especially Providence Journal and CBS. In short, this article clearly is not based around one event. The subject clearly meets WP:N and WP:GNG. The article supplies significant and reliable coverage that are undoubtedly independent of this man. The historic connotations of what he has done as documented in the article are not temporary, and they have had real consequences for the people and organisations on which he has blown the whistle. Indeed, he has become an advisor to legislators, an opinion and editorial writer for a Pulitzer Prize winning newspaper, and he has left his mark through multiple endeavours, as cited in the article. It is in my humble opinion that this article be kept. SVUKnight (talk) 05:57, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  NNADI GOOD LUCK  ( Talk &#124; Contribs ) 14:33, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep this is not BLP1E, as coverage exists over almost two decades. I saw a few sketchy sources and certainly some excessive citing, but I also saw sustained coverage in reputable sources.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:23, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Easily meets GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:21, 22 November 2019 (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.