Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pat Korte


 * 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.  Sandstein  20:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Pat Korte
The article for Pat Korte should be deleted because it does not meet Wikipedia's standards for notability as it fails to demonstrate "significant" coverage. Yes, Mr. Korte has appeared in a mainstream press article, but this does not demonstrate significant coverage to the point of notability. Mr. Korte's alleged notability is based solely on the fact that he is a member of Students for a Democratic Society and has been involved with the organizing of the group and that this has been mentioned by a mainstream press account. Given the vast numbers of individuals who have been intimately and publicly connected to the new Students for a Democratic Society, many of whom who have received greater press attention, the relative amount of press coverage Mr. Korte has received cannot meet notability. Moreover, Mr. Korte's notability can never extend beyond a one-line statement of him having been involved in the organizing of the new Students for a Democratic Society and this article will never extend beyond a one-line stub. At best, he merits a mention on the Students_for_a_Democratic_Society_(2006_organization) page in the section "Re-formation". It is notable then, that the entry for Students_for_a_Democratic_Society_(2006_organization) does not even mention Mr. Korte and there is no edit war agitating for his inclusion. This page therefore does not meet notability standards and meets the guidelines for deletion. SamuraiDiscoCat (talk) 22:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I should mention that this may NOT be the articles second nomination for deletion. In the talk page, there was mention of a deletion tag having been put on, but I think it was for speedy deletion or something, which, from what I'm gathering, is a distinct process than this one. SamuraiDiscoCat (talk) 23:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. The only reason that this might not develop beyond a one-line stub is that the nominator keeps deleting the sourced material beyond the first line. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This diff gives full and short versions.  Springnuts (talk) 22:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The person who nominated the article for deletion and the person who kept deleting the biographical information are not the same person. We happen to work together and I explained that you are supposed to go through a process for deletion, not simply remove things. As for the one-line comment--the biographic information that was being deleted isn't particularly useful to an understanding of the subject's notability. But that's a separate discussion entirely as this discussion is about the fact that we have a stub of an article that will never grow past being a stub. The fact that Pat Korte is a student activist is something one can obviously infer by the fact that he was involved as one of many in the refoundation of SDS--you could insert a single sentence into the main SDS (2006 version) article and the needs of an encyclopedia would be served. SamuraiDiscoCat (talk) 01:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. I read the sources, and it does appear to satisfy notability.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Significant coverage is part of the guidelines and this person has not received significant coverage. Nor is this information really that accurate--Korte and Rapchik didn't refound the organization per se, they sent out a call for it to be refounded and people answered that call by starting chapters. I think we're all forgetting that on the page of the actual organization we're talking about, neither of their names are mentioned and an entirely different story is told about the founding of the new SDS. SamuraiDiscoCat (talk) 01:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:VER says the wikipedia aims for "verifiability, not truth". If multiple articles, spread over three years, report that Korte and Rapchik triggered the founding of the revitalized organization we should report that they are credited with triggering the founding of the new organization.  If our nominator has other sources, that offer a different history of the founding, then he or she should cite those references.  Geo Swan (talk) 03:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - or redirect to the snappily titled Students for a Democratic Society (2006 organization). Coverage is not significant - he is not a notable  politician - yet at any rate - essentially he has simply had a part in just one event.  Springnuts (talk) 22:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Springnuts and WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment -- I would like to ask our nominator how much research they put in to this topic, prior to making the nomination. I found multiple additional references -- spanning over the last three years.  This makes him more than a BLP1E.  Contrary to what the nominator asserted, that Korte is just one of a large group of founders the references state that he founded the new SDS with one other person.  I urge our nominator to show greater due diligence in future.
 * Keep -- Nominator failed to do due diligence prior to nomination. Subject co-founded an organization, with one other individual, which now has 120 chapters.  Geo Swan (talk) 03:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Nominator did not fail due diligence as he has made references. SamuraiDiscoCat (talk) 15:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment -- I looked at our nominator's past contribution history, to see where else on the wikipedia they had contributed. I found they had made exactly two other edits -- to Talk:Students for a Democratic Society (2006 organization).  I know there are, occasionally, valid reasons why a wikipedia contributor will abandon one wiki-id, and adopt a new one.  But I think when a wikipedian does that they should leave a good faith note on their talk page acknowledging they did that, and possibly offering a trusted administrator, or experienced wikipedian, who knows the full story, and can vouch that they are not a sockpuppet.  I left a request on the nominator's talk page asking them to explain their background.  Geo Swan (talk) 03:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? The article, not the nominator, is the subject of discussion. I created this user name to engage this topic, which is appropriate as it is me taking responsibility for this and is my first engagement with this sort of thing. Calling my honesty into question is failing to meet good faith guidelines of discussion as laid out by Wikipedia, friend. Check yourself. It is appropriate to disagree with me, but inappropriate to accuse me of being a sockpuppet and I expect some sort of apology. SamuraiDiscoCat (talk) 15:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And making this even more funny, I notice that you then went over to the SDS page and inserted the Pat Korte reference, without giving an edit summary. This is an inappropriate escalation of a disagreement over the notability of an article, to an edit war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SamuraiDiscoCat (talk • contribs) 15:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually I put the reference to Korte into the SDS article, prompted by your suggestion above that it should be there, and I did use an edit summary, as did Geo Swan when he added further sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - esteemed fellow Wikipedians, may we please all assume good faith, remain civil and stick to the issues? It will make the closing admin's job so much easier, and keep all our blood pressures down. Springnuts (talk) 20:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.   —Geo Swan (talk) 04:04, 9 December 2008 (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.