Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seamus Coughlin


 * 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:08, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Seamus Coughlin

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

An extremely promotional article on a subject that likely does not meet GNG. Sourcing is largely Youtube, and article is largely a description of his activities and statements on Youtube. A search does not find adequate RS. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:48, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:48, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:48, 13 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I am the one who wrote the article about Seamus Coughlin. I am not him and it is not promotional in any way. I was simply trying to contribute to Wikipedia. It mostly mentions his YouTube because that's what he does for a living and is what he is famous for, so obviously that's going to be the primary focus. It does not meet the grounds for deletion.Cc330162 (talk) 23:13, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment here is a breakdown of the current article sourcing, including multiple uses to support a claim:
 * 55 times: youtube.com
 * 5 times: foundation for economic education (fee.org)
 * 3 times: Lyons Township High School (lths.net)
 * once: seamuscoughlin.com, Vimeo.com and libertarianrepublic.com ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:51, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete I brought this one to the attention of WP:COIN when I ran across it while new page patrolling. It seems highly promotional and I also failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate WP:GNG. Even if it did meet GNG, likely WP:TNT would apply. Highly likely conflict of interest, possibly paid editing sock puppetry as well as the new editor who submitted this seems to be very experienced and therefore not editing under their first account. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    00:18, 14 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Rebuttal I'm sorry that you think my article is promotional, but I promise you it's not. The reason why I cited YouTube so much is because Seamus Coughlin is not that well known and that's where most of the information about him can be found. If I didn't source YouTube at all there would be almost no verifiable information about him and the article wouldn't be credible. I do not have any relationship with him, and I don't think he even know's there's an article about him. I'm just a fan of his who felt like there should be a Wikipedia article about him. That's it. There's no conflict of interest or promotion going on here. If you read the article you'll see it is completely objective. I don't contribute to Wikipedia often. I am a child and this is my first article. I worked very hard on it on my own time and I'm proud of it. It clearly does not meet the grounds for deletion. All of the claims made against me, including me being Seamus Coughlin or being payed off by him to write the article, are completely false. Please don't delete it. It would be weeks of hard work and research completely wasted. Cc330162 (talk)


 * We go by notability standard described at WP:GNG. That is largely based on finding enough WP:RS to establish notability. Unfortunately intentions are not a part of this. When you say If I didn't source YouTube at all there would be almost no verifiable information about him and the article wouldn't be credible, you are summing up the problem: there aren't really any independent sources. If you write future articles, I would suggest running them through the WP:AFC system rather than publishing them yourself, as they would have pointed this out much earlier on. By the way, the article was very well-written. Its major problem is the lack or reliable, independent, in-depth sourcing. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:42, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't follow your logic. Because the source is from YouTube, that automatically makes it unreliable? The reason YouTube was cited so much is because of the Political Views section of the article, and because he's a political commentator on YouTube, wouldn't the best place to find sources for that be there? If I cited, like, an article or something by someone else describing his political views, that wouldn't be reliable because they could potentially be strawmanning or misrepresenting him. Seamus Coughlin is the only person who can accurately explain the political views of Seamus Coughlin. He also did many interviews on YouTube where he talked about his career and early childhood, so I sourced those. I don't quite see the problem here. I'm not an experienced Wikipedia contributor so maybe you could explain.Cc330162 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:17, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll just reply here once more and ask you again to read WP:RS. We generally don't accept article subjects as sources for their own articles; everything needs to be sourced independently, as described in WP:RS. Anyone can publish on Youtube, which makes it a bad source: if we take Youtube as a reliable source, anyone could publish a Wikipedia article based on things they had just published on Youtube. ...something by someone else describing his political views is actually exactly what we want, published by a reliable publisher (not Youtube). That is how the whole encyclopedia has been written. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:44, 14 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - subject looks to be a WP:NARTIST failure. Noting that the article's sourcing is by-and-large WP:PRIMARY or tangential, and this poses an issue as coverage must be reliable, in-depth, and intellectually independent from the subject to confer notability on said subject.--SamHolt6 (talk) 00:36, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete This mostly references primary sources, not seeing substantive independent sources discussing him. Reywas92Talk 01:30, 14 September 2019 (UTC)


 * What? I'm sorry but isn't the first thing that people are taught about sources in school that primary sources are the most credible? The claim that Seamus Coughlin was born in Chicago is more credible if I have a video of him saying that he was born in Chicago (DePaul and #MiloYiannopoulos on YouTube). The claim that Seamus Coughlin attended Lyons Township High School is more credible if I have a video of him hosting a segment for the school news at Lyons Township High School (Know Time: Cell Phones - Feature Story - W). The claim that Seamus Coughlin is against gun control is more credible if I have a video of Seamus Coughlin making arguments against gun control (Support Gun Control You Child Hating Bigot!! on YouTube). Your claim that these sources are somehow less credible than secondary sources is absolutely baffling to me. Cc330162 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:39, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Primary sources can out right lie or exaggerate. Just like online profiles for places like dating sites. At best they can be misleading.  I am really from the NYC area, 5’3”, overweight and never finished grad school at Columbia University.  But I can tell you I grew up in Miami Beach, won various beauty contests at the various beaches because I rocked a bikini, that as a result I was the Cindy Crawford of bikini models, and I received a BA, MSW and PhD from Columbia.  I said it.  But that doesn’t make it true.  Postcard Cathy (talk) 16:56, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Why are you making up what I said? I did not say the primary source are not credible; I am not suggesting you just made this all up. What I am saying is that primary sources do not establish WP:NOTABILITY. For inclusion in Wikipedia we need secondary sources that say that what is in the primary sources is actually meaningful. Please read this policy and better understand our inclusion guidelines, otherwise we would have articles on every random person spouting opinions on Youtube. You can write a credible article from their own links but you need more than that prove this is worth us writing about. Reywas92Talk 19:52, 14 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete does not appear to pass WP:GNG. Rab V (talk) 00:05, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete: made an effort to try and dig out some sources for this article and I really struggled. Subject doesn't meet WP:GNG at all. Maybe WP:TOOSOON is pertinent? -- a consensus is queer oppression &#124; argue &#124; contribs 12:00, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:GNG. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 17:54, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Very little evidence, if any, of coverage in credible publications Dexxtrall (talk) 13:27, 18 September 2019 (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.