Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Lancaster


 * 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. Consensus to delete per WP:GNG and WP:NJOURNALIST. Almost all Keep arguments based upon NBC and Vice sources. No convincing argument that the NBC is sufficiently about the subject to satisfy GNG, or that the Vice article can be considered a sufficiently reliable source. High likelihood of comments from questionable account, but does not change the consensus. TigerShark (talk) 00:51, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Overturned to No Consensus. See Deletion review/Log/2022 July 24.  -- RoySmith (talk) 17:40, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Patrick Lancaster

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This video-blogger does not meet the criteria for notability per WP:GNG nor WP:NJOURNALIST. It had been previously deleted. Netherzone (talk) 17:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 17:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. There are hardly any sources on this person. Not notable.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep sources listed in article. 666hopedieslast (talk) 22:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * note to reviewer: this account was started on May 29 2022 with one innocuous edit. Went into overdrive on June 19 (no edits in between) displaying an astonishing amount of knowledge of Wikipedia editing techniques. Probably worth considering, as another "keep" vote comes from IntrepidContributor, an account created 5 days ago and also well-versed in Wikipedia immediately. Wes sideman (talk) 12:51, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * note to reviewer: many votes were cast before I added several Dutch sources. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 14:14, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 20:28, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete lacks enough coverage to justify a standalone article IMO. Maybe merge any relevant information to Disinformation in the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis?-KH-1 (talk) 01:32, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Russia,  and Ukraine. Netherzone (talk) 04:02, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. See sources I posted in talk page which can be added. BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:30, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete as not notable propagandist youtuber. --IgorTurzh (talk) 10:28, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * CommentThe article includes two sources at present (only one of which discusses Lancaster at length) and formerly also included The Daily Mirror which mentioned Lancaster in passing. That hardly speaks to notability. Bobfrombrockley has listed one source by Task and Purpose and one article in Polish in the talk page of the article that discuss Lancaster in depth and also four that mention him in passing as "the most popular pro-Russian influencer" on YouTube or some such. That gives exactly three sources that talk about Lancaster beyond the bare minimum and several brief mentions. None of this satisfies WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:32, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete no sources found, passing mentions. Might be notable later, not at this time. Oaktree b (talk) 00:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep I added a few more references. The Wired article alone is enough to establish notability in my opinion. IntrepidContributor (talk) 21:11, 10 July 2022 (UTC) — IntrepidContributor (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * note to reviewer this account was started 6 days after this deletion discussion was created, and immediately knew how to do everything on Wikipedia correctly. I believe the vote should be disregarded. Wes sideman (talk) 12:51, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The sources you've added are passing mentions. They do not help the article or its notability.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:29, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * What is wrong with passing mentions? I am trying to help keep the article. IntrepidContributor (talk) 21:34, 10 July 2022 (UTC) — IntrepidContributor (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I added now a full article by Zaborona which is not just passing mention. IntrepidContributor (talk) 21:53, 10 July 2022 (UTC) — IntrepidContributor (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The Zabrorona "full article" is a work of native advertising, it even says on their about page that they are "We are open for native advertisements". It does not count towards WP:GNG because it is paid advertising mascarading ad an article. Netherzone (talk) 02:12, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The Zabrorona article is a work of journalism. Many publishers offer native advertising and Advertorials, but they usually provide advertising disclosure. The Financial Times offers "engaging and impactful multimedia storytelling" to advertisers, but that doesn't mean they aren't also capable of producing journalism. Wikipedia cites the Financial Times 463,714 times. IntrepidContributor (talk) 15:52, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect,, this is native advertising and is a primary source from his family - the article title starts with From the Lancaster Family - it is a placed advertorial not a work of journalism. Primary sources or placed advertorial content do not count towards notability. Netherzone (talk) 03:47, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * From the Lancaster Family in the title is not advertising disclosure. Please provide evidence that this is native advertising, and not journalism, like Zaborona itself claims. The lead of the article says Zaborona investigated the life and work of one of Russia’s most popular propagandists and sought to find out who could fund Lancaster and why he supported the war. IntrepidContributor (talk) 09:39, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I hope you are addressing the community, because people that put up AFDs rarely ever ever change their mind, no matter how many sources are provided. 666hopedieslast (talk) 12:14, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't expect some people to change their mind here. I do expect the administrator closing this discussion to make a good judgement on whether the Zaborona article is an advertorial or not. I also posted for community input on Reliable sources/Noticeboard and Village pump (policy). IntrepidContributor (talk) 14:05, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * What evidence do you have that Zaborona got paid money for that article?? And let's pretend for a second that you're right... and they got paid money for what you're calling is an "advertorial", well the article basically reads as a slanderous hit piece against Patrick Lancaster! If your theory is true and he paid for it, then that's got to be one of the biggest waste of money ever. Mathmo Talk 16:50, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Comment This is a difficult one, most of the sources you find are his "disinformation" on fishy looking websites. His name seems to come up with Gonzalo Lira, who was up for AfD here a few months ago. More than enough passing mentions of this fellow; could probably be a brief mention in an article about propaganda. Oaktree b (talk) 23:30, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete One in-depth independent source (the Vice article) is not sufficient to meet WP:NBIO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:25, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: it's not clear to me that the Zaborona article is an advert funded by the Lancaster family – it takes a remarkably critical stance on Lancaster if that's the case! It calls him a "propogandist", strongly implies that he has lied about his credentials and experiences, quotes Bellingcat's description of him as a "useful idiot", talks about his "fake report", and discusses his connections with the FSB. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:03, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - Passing mentions are sometimes fine for substantiating some claims but they do not add up to notability even if there is a plethora of them. Reliable sources are ones such as quality mainstream press that discuss the subject as its major treatment. Zaborona is not mainstream press. There is a big difference between Zabrona and the FT. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:14, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep – In fact, the more I look into it the more convinced I am that the Zaborona source is neither advertising nor a primary source; that and the Vice article seem to be the significant coverage in sources independent of the subject that WP:GNG asks for. The question becomes whether Zaborona is reliable.  I am not familiar with it, but the founders do seem to be journalists who have published in certainly-reliable sources (Katerina Sergatskova has published a couple of articles in The Guardian; Roman Stepanovych produced a Peabody Award-winning documentary for PBS).  Zaborona doesn't seem to have been discussed on e.g. the reliable sources noticeboard previously, but unless there's something I'm missing I'm inclined to think that they are reliable.  They are no FT, but the FT is not our minimum standard for a reliable source – if it were, we'd delete a lot of articles which presently survive deletion discussions Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:33, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely no chance that the Zaborona source is advertising paid for by Lancaster, as for what logical reason could he possibly have to do that?? Quite the opposite... it might be argued the Zaborona goes "too far" and violates WP:LIBEL but that's a discussion for another day. Mathmo Talk 17:04, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note User:Ermenrich who edit wars against Gonzalo Lira with staunch POV, has been actively in a bad faith edit war today with me about this article, he continues to remove well sourced articles, including the BBC. Earlier source removals:,  Latest removals. 666hopedieslast (talk) 12:01, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for drawing attention to your attempts at white washing the subject. I was considering posting about it here myself.—-Ermenrich (talk) 12:04, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * As Ermenrich deleted in the article in an edit war to remove well sourced documents, the BBC states, "Lancaster's videos have been featured by mainstream media outlets and has contributed to The Telegraph and Sky News" and also RT.com. 666hopedieslast (talk) 12:14, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If you want to complain about my reverting your attempt to call Lancaster a journalist and removing the fact that he’s a pro Russian propagandist, something not supported by the sources you’ve provided, please do so in the appropriate forum. This is not the place.—-Ermenrich (talk) 12:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I did not remove the statement that "he’s a pro Russian propagandist".Look at the last edit I posted. This lie needs to be retracted. 666hopedieslast (talk) 12:58, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * My friend... You can not begin with a collection of personal attacks, half truths, and innuendo and then demand that "This lie needs to be retracted." Retract your own and then you can get back on that high horse. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:21, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * As Ermenrich deleted in the article in an edit war to remove well sourced documents, the BBC states, "Lancaster's videos have been featured by mainstream media outlets and has contributed to The Telegraph and Sky News" and also RT.com. 666hopedieslast (talk) 12:14, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If you want to complain about my reverting your attempt to call Lancaster a journalist and removing the fact that he’s a pro Russian propagandist, something not supported by the sources you’ve provided, please do so in the appropriate forum. This is not the place.—-Ermenrich (talk) 12:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I did not remove the statement that "he’s a pro Russian propagandist".Look at the last edit I posted. This lie needs to be retracted. 666hopedieslast (talk) 12:58, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * My friend... You can not begin with a collection of personal attacks, half truths, and innuendo and then demand that "This lie needs to be retracted." Retract your own and then you can get back on that high horse. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:21, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I did not remove the statement that "he’s a pro Russian propagandist".Look at the last edit I posted. This lie needs to be retracted. 666hopedieslast (talk) 12:58, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * My friend... You can not begin with a collection of personal attacks, half truths, and innuendo and then demand that "This lie needs to be retracted." Retract your own and then you can get back on that high horse. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:21, 13 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep (weak) - per talk page and sources there - GizzyCatBella  🍁  14:06, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - is one of the very very few western journalists reporting from within DPR/LPR itself, and has been doing so for eight years! Longer track record with a deeper knowledge than anybody else like him. Easily passes notability criteria without breaking a sweat. Mathmo Talk 14:26, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see any credible sources actually calling him a journalist. Vice calls him a journalist with apostrophes and NBC calls him an influencer. IntrepidContributor (talk) 15:21, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * He's a War Journalist going in to report in places where none of them dare to go. No surprises the opinions they have about him. Mathmo Talk 15:46, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you think that Russia or the DLNR allow "western journalists" to go to territory they control?--Ermenrich (talk) 15:58, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course they'll let in western journalists if they want to come, as Russia/LDR/DPR doesn't seem have a blanket ban against them like Ukrainian has a blanket ban against Russian news sources. For instance French24 journalists reported from within a so called "liberated" city: https://twitter.com/ivan_8848/status/1544426255260459009 And here is another different example, Sky News TV also reporting from within a former Ukrainian city: https://twitter.com/AZmilitary1/status/1543258956537143298
 * The issue is that western journalist seem to only very rarely report from the other side, and spend almost no time on it (aside from a few very very rare exceptions, such as Patrick Lancaster). We can only speculate as to why they wish to ignore reporting from the other side? Mathmo Talk 16:38, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry for barging in, but I think that France 24 reported from Lysychansk when it was still under the Ukrainian control. The locals accuse the Ukrainian soldiers of trying to 'deport' them. Alaexis¿question? 06:19, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep coverage in sources such as Vice & NBC is sufficient for WP:GNG. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:43, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * NOTE - I have reduced the content of the article to remedy BLP violations. Those here may wish to review those changes.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 19:25, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete There's only one reliable source in that article (NBCNews) which only mentions him in passing (and not in very positive light - so if we do keep this article this will be what it's based on) but other than that there's no indication of notability. Reason this was created is because the guy is popular on the fringe parts of social media (youtube, twitter) among fanatic pro-Putin supporters. This is just an attempt to amplify his non-notability.  Volunteer Marek   02:03, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, the Vice article is specifically about him and he's notable enough to be a subject of a report by Institute for Strategic Dialogue ( mentioned in the NBC article. Alaexis¿question? 06:14, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You might want to read the discussions about Vice in the archives of WP:RSP, as it's reliability as a source is questionable. It's not a high quality source, and some consider it gonzo journalism, certainly not a good source for politics but may be OK for music reviews. The only decent source in the Lancaster article is NBC, and that is not in-depth significant coverage as mentioned above. Netherzone (talk) 06:36, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * There is literally no consensus about it, there was no RfC that established that it's not a high quality source. Alaexis¿question? 07:29, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * , there is no such report by the IDS on their website, try searching "Patrick Lancaster" there yourself . The IDS just spoke to NBC about him.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:53, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * , you're right, thanks for checking it. I've amended my comment accordingly. This doesn't change my vote in view of the coverage by Vice, NBC and Dutch media mentioned by User:Alexis Jazz. Alaexis¿question? 14:34, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. I actually recognized this name because his name has been mentioned in Dutch media more than once in relation to Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 being shot down. This article in NRC (newspaper) (definitely a reliable source) for example mentions "Lancaster" 7 times: . by De Telegraaf about Russian media is also clearly more than a passing mention. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 17:17, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * These Dutch media are useful references for the article. IntrepidContributor (talk) 06:21, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete not enough coverage in reliable sources to meet GNG. Most of the references are fluff - self-published, or paid advertising. Additionally, I notice that two of the major contributors to this article started their accounts a month ago, and 5 days ago. They both displayed an astonishing knowledge of Wikipedia editing right from the get-go. Something is rotten in Denmark. Wes sideman (talk) 12:42, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Wes sideman, how much coverage would be enough? Did you also count the Dutch sources I added? (some are paywalled, but that doesn't affect notability) Also note I just added a few more. None of those are self-published or paid advertising.Edit: in case anyone would wonder, the reason I'm here is because User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång pinged me for template help on Talk:Patrick Lancaster, which was appropriate due to my contributions to Infobox YouTube personality. Noticed the RfD tag and here I am. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 13:57, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Can't say I agree with you on delete, but I second your nose... There is something off here. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:13, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I contributed to the Russian, Ukrainian and English Wikipedias when I was in university in England (5 years ago). I can't access my old account because it is connected to my old email which I also can't access (because I can't access my Ukrainian cell). The Zaborona article is not "paid advertising," as claimed by Wes sideman, so their "Additional" point is ad hominem. I have no connection to any of the other accounts Wes refers to. IntrepidContributor (talk) 17:13, 15 July 2022 (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.