Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Ray Ramsey


 * 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. Kurykh (talk) 04:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Paul Ray Ramsey

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a coatrack, although now I have removed the coatrack content. This biography was created by a user about to be blocked for two months. The weblinks barely mention the subject - there is no biographical content - it is basically an attack page, attacking someone or other that is not the subject of the biography, a coatrack, awful, wikipedia at its worst. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:35, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: now you've edited it, this isn't an attack page anymore. Some other sources related to him that could potentially be used as part of the basis for a section on his views and as evidence for notability: Salon, SPLC, Raw Story, Washington Spectator (that one republished in Newsweek). I wouldn't be sad if the article were deleted and don't plan to work on it much myself (not a topic I want to immerse myself in) but I don't yet see a policy reason why it should be deleted. Mortee (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It is hard to understand, no , it is not really - anyone can edit wikipedia - there is no articles specifically about him, he is only tangentially mentioned - there is no life story (a biography) about him at all. Govindaharihari (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. While one sentence quotes in a variety of articles probably wouldn't satisfy WP:BASIC, ironically the Southern Poverty Law Center seems to be almost showering publicity on the subject, with an in-depth profile and 2013 magazine article, calling him "the hottest right-wing video blogger this side of former Klansman David Duke", and he could arguably satisfy WP:ENTERTAINER via "a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." --Animalparty! (talk) 05:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Southern Poverty Law Center is just an opponent of the subject - has no chance of writing a neutral biography about the subject, just a totally biased opponent of the living person. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete Lots of passing mentions, no in-depth coverage. AusLondonder (talk) 08:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Totally agree. There is no in depth and neutral coverage at all about this living person. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:05, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * All that is important is - have I got enough decent neutral sources to write a decent life story about a noteworthy living person and if your answer is yes then vote to keep. It is my investigation that that position is not realized by a long way. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * keep The SPLC profile came at the top of the first page of a search on his name., but it was User:Animalparty's citation of  their magazine profile "The Smiling est Nationalist" that persuaded me (I had though it was sort of BLP:1E / election related.  Adding  a description of him I found in Politico to the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:13, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 05:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong keep plenty of WP:RS.  If you can show that most of the WP:RS of the article does not mention him at all, then I might reconsider.  --David Tornheim (talk) 05:31, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Meets WP:GNG as having indepth coverage in the two SPLC articles linked by Animalparty and plenty of wider media coverage. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:25, 26 February 2017 (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.