Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott G. Stewart


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:43, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Scott G. Stewart

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Subject requests deletion and article fails notability standard Scottgstewart (talk) 02:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. I understand why a political operative like the subject would want to have his unattractive (but cited) past scrubbed from an online enyclopedia. While the Seattle Times link has gone dead and can't be found in archives, this source demonstrates that the source exists and could be found in an offline search. Further, this source shows the subject buying a home with a CR co-worker, now a NC congressman and illegally claiming with him District of Columbia's Homestead Tax Deduction. The USA Today and Las Vegas sources put this subject past the bar of notability, IMHO. On further reading, it seems an SPA scrubbed scandal from a company connected to the subject in 2010, which I've now added back in. This may or not be related. BusterD (talk) 15:26, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Comment – The additional sources which BusterD sited and linked are not reliable independent secondary sources as they are partisan blogs. The additional links appear to be pushing this BLP toward PSEUDO Biography and attack page.  The subject clearly fails WP: Notability standard and personally requests deletion.
 * From the Wikipedia policy on Deletion of BLPs of Relatively Unknown Subjects: Where the subject of a BLP has requested deletion, the deletion policy says: "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottgstewart (talk • contribs) 00:30, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've struck your bolded "delete" above - usually the nominator doesn't "vote", as the nomination itself is already considered to show the nominator's preference for deletion. — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 09:51, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 09:51, 15 September 2012 (UTC)




 * Keep - As head for multiple years of the Republican Party's youth section, this is an individual about whom there should be encyclopedic biography. THIS PIECE in a BYU magazine about Stewart and his running mate notes that the national College Republicans organization includes 779 chapters and 80,000 members — a hefty-sized organization. To wheel out once again my often-used rationale: "I favor the lowest possible bar for inclusion of pieces about political parties, their leaders, and their youth sections regardless of size or ideology — this is the sort of thing that SHOULD be in an encyclopedia." There do seem to be some possible undue weight issues, which is an editing matter. Carrite (talk) 15:43, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - The relisting of this BLP appears odd. The additional links provided are partisan political blogs and do not yield sufficient evidence of neutrality required by reliable secondary sources.  The Carrite addition of the BYU piece does nothing to show notability as Stewart is not the subject of the article and the BYU student newspaper is not a reliable secondary source.  Even he noted that the article is unbalanced.  Additionally, since the subject is relatively unknown and has personally requested deletion, is there any chance a consensus could appear?  Since such a consensus is essentially impossible, the policy mandates that the article be closed as delete.  Scottgstewart (talk) 16 September 2012 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.194.34 (talk)
 * Delete. Fails the WP:POLITICIAN standard as the ancillary party offices are not covered as notable. Also fails WP:PSEUDO as this article is unbalanced.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Potus128 (talk • contribs) 13:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Insufficient evidence of non-inherited notability. Subject does not meet Wikipedia notability standard and has not been the subject of multiple published secondary sources as he is only the subject of one sourced article – USA Today.  He is only mentioned in all the other articles and is not the subject thereof.  Additional links appear to be Democratic political blogs and fail any real standard of inclusion.  Therefore he is not subject of significant media coverage and is not notable.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ctiedeman (talk • contribs) 14:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  DGG ( talk ) 14:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete As my close was objected to, I have relisted. I had closed as delete on the grounds of "Delete on the basic BLP grounds of general fairness to living people." I explained further on my talk p.any article would put undue emphasis on inappropriate material . DGG ( talk ) 15:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. This reads like an attack page. Unproven allegations are not the basis for an article. --Michig (talk) 16:48, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. One modestly substantial piece in a newspaper (USA Today) isn't really enough to meet WP:GNG, and the WP:BLP issues make it a clear delete in my view. The lack of general coverage of Stewart means that the article ends up being dominated by the unproven allegations, which (as DGG noted) makes it function as an attack page. I assume that was not the intent of the article's creator(s), but it is the effect. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:23, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - this is a fairly strange case, not helped by the two SPAs who have chosen this AfD and a related article each as their only articles of interest. I can only imagine there's some serious sock-puppetry going on. I have had a look at the sources - one was broken so I fixed it, another was a dead link and the original article is now behind a pay-wall so I hid it. Strictly speaking, I think the subject does (just) meet WP:GNG on the basis of the articles provided - three articles either focussed on the subject or that mention him specifically and provide more than just passing mentions. I acknowledge that the articles that remain aren't particularly complimentary, but if we deleted every BLP on the basis that notability should be established only by "complimentary" coverage then we would lose many BLP articles over-night. However, given the meeting of WP:GNG is (at this stage) marginal, given the subject has requested deletion and given our want to uphold the principle of doing no harm, I'd be inclined to delete. It is worth pointing out, I think, that one or two more sources could probably put WP:GNG beyond doubt, regardless of whether they speak highly of the subject or not. If the subject were to receive more coverage in the future (regardless of tone) an article could possibly be justified again. Stalwart 111  (talk) 04:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Stalwart111 says what I wanted to say much better than I did:)
 * I agree that this is a marginal case, and that more coverage in the future might justify re-creation. However, a re-created article would need to take care not give undue weight to unproven allegations. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Reads like an attack page. If notability can indeed be established, the article should be rewritten from scratch or the offending revisions removed.  Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 08:09, 28 September 2012 (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.