Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Paul McDonald


 * 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. Secret account 01:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Richard Paul McDonald

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not a notable individual, by Wikipedia's standards. An effort has obviously been made to puff up the article, but there's no evidence of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Dawn Bard (talk) 23:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Richard has built a massive following in recent years on his various social media platforms and in academic debating circles in London and Dublin. I have followed his progress since he won the Young Black Achiever's award and he has done well to raise social issues in both public and social media spheres. I personally think his role as a young politically active person-of-colour makes him needing of a wikipedia entry. He is currently scheduled to attend many debates this year and this is the perfect time for an online biography of Richard to exist! Reliable sources often do not pay attention to young academics, young black academics at that, so it is understandable that 'independent sources' are hard to come by. I have gone to great trouble to do research on Richard's life and obtain his permission for the photo to be included and feel that he is one of few academics really causing a stir at a grassroots level today. His activism is well documented and known in academic spheres. It might be worth noting that I do not know Richard Personally, I came across his work as a volunteer for the Labour Party during his work at the youth gym in Nottingham. 00:38, 11th October 2014 (GMT) User:Wikitruth93 (talk)


 * Delete. Sounds like a nice guy, but I'm afraid he isn't quite there in terms of notability yet. Wikipedia's strict guidelines on biographies of living people demand that reliable sources exist and are cited, and they just don't yet. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 23:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Significant coverage in reliable, independent sources is lacking for this 20 year old fellow. Such coverage is the only way we could verify his "massive following", whatever that means. No plausible claim to notability is offered. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  01:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


 * keep and clean up I have added references and photos to substantiate claims made in the article including Richard's work in fashion. By 'Massive following' I mean his social network following and invitations to public debates Wikitruth93 (talk) 01:21, 11 October 2014 (UTC) I have also added an explicit rationale for his notability on the introductory paragraph on his page Wikitruth93 (talk) 01:23, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


 *  Keep and remove false claims Richard McDonald is a well known member of the Nottingham City Community, and contributes to many current social issues. His input as a Nottingham citizen far outweighs that of citizens such as Paul McMahon who has had a page for years without any contribution beyond cricket in the Nottingham community. To ignore Richard's contributions would be discriminatory on racist, ableist, homophobic and religious grounds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roshanah (talk • contribs) 03:32, 11 October 2014 (UTC)  — Roshanah (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Please assume good faith when it comes to the people arguing for deletion of this article. Your comments insinuate that the people arguing for deletion are only doing so because they are discriminating against him, which can be seen as an attack against these editors. Continuing to make comments such as these will not only be seen as an attack and make it more likely that you may be blocked for attacking other editors, but it will also greatly decrease the value of your argument and in some cases, make the closing admin disregard your argument entirely. Also, please be aware that the existence of other pages (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) does not mean that this article will pass notability guidelines. The other pages might fail notability guidelines or the individual may pass based on coverage- either way, the existence of other articles does not mean that this article should or shouldn't remain. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:21, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The article, as written, doesn't even suggest that he's either disabled or queer — if he's either one of those things, the article isn't saying it — so there's no basis for claiming that anybody is motivated by ableism or homophobia, and not a single person in this entire discussion has even implied that his racial background had anything to do with their reasoning either. Our inclusion rules are governed by the presence or absence of sufficient reliable source coverage to demonstrate that a person passes one or more of our notability standards, not by anybody getting a free notability pass just because they happen to be gay or disabled or multiracial. (Wanna guess, while we're at it, which two of those three I am? And the one I'm not, I have two nieces who are. Yet I voted to delete below — so where does that leave your argument?) Bearcat (talk) 22:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 05:29, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 05:30, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep and clean up Well this is strange...I actually went to see a live debate in modern problems in africa last night with Richard in! I don't really see why his notability is up for debate; he is known in academic circles (for which independent 'evidence' is hard to come by) and as far as i'm concerned his breadth of involvement in things definitely makes him notable. How many young bi-racial academics do you know who have also modelled for topshop? The boy deserves a wiki! Jimijewel (talk) 10:57, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Social networking doesn't make for good sourcing because it's by-and-large ephemeral. If he's notable - and deserves an article - he needs to do something that gets some headlines. Being biracial, modelling for a high-street store and appearing in non-notable debates isn't qualification enough, unfortunately. LS1979 (talk) 16:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's inclusion standards are not governed by notions of whether the subject "deserves" an article or not — one could argue that their own girlfriend "deserves" an article because she's the hottest bestest girlfriend ever, and one could argue that a serial killer doesn't "deserve" the "publicity". Rather, they're governed by the presence or absence of reliable source coverage which verifies that the person has done something that could credibly be expected to earn them permanent coverage in an international encyclopedia. "Deserves" has nothing to do with it one way or the other. Bearcat (talk) 23:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - he might make a more significant career in politics, modelling or academia later on (at which point we will have an article on him) but at the moment the achievements are too localised to have any impact. This is more WP:TOOSOON or WP:BASIC than anything that could be perceived as discriminatory. LS1979 (talk) 16:08, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete: this is a confessional, unprofessional biography of a fringe (or perhaps better to use the term radical) idealist. Being biracial is not-notable per se and even his supporters do not use the term "activist" from what I can tell, but let's not get into semantics. Radicals can be but are not de facto notable, that mostly depends upon their accomplishments. At the very least, this all is way too soon -- let him accomplish something notable first or get elected! Quis separabit?  18:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


 * This, as written, is an article about a person who might have a little bit of local prominence, but does not pass any of our notability rules for inclusion in an international encyclopedia. The sourcing isn't nearly good enough, either, as it relies heavily on Tumblr and Twitter and YouTube, with only a couple of cursory mentions in any real reliable sources — so he isn't the subject of nearly enough real media coverage to qualify for inclusion under WP:GNG. Having a following on social media doesn't cut it as a notability claim, either — it's the presence or absence of reliable source coverage that gets a person included or excluded around here, not raw numbers of Twitter followers or YouTube video views. It's certainly possible that he might accomplish more in the future, but Wikipedia isn't a venue for promotional profiles about people who aspire to become notable — it's a venue for neutral information about people who have already passed one or more of our inclusion standards. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:24, 16 October 2014 (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.