Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Crowder (3rd nomination)


 * 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   no consensus. ⇌ Jake   Wartenberg  17:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Steven Crowder
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Crowder (3rd nomination) Stats )

This article has been deleted twice before. I was the editor who nominated it the first time that it was deleted, because it did not meet the notability guidelines. When it was deleted in the past, it was because there were no secondary sources on the subject available.

There have been a few sources published on him, but they are all on this single protest incident. I feel that this fits the description of a pseudo-biography and thus the subject still does not meet the notability guidelines. "In general, creating a pseudo-biography (on an individual who is only notable because of their participation in a single event) will require the inclusion of other biographical material, e.g. their date of birth and family background. Such information, in many cases, will fail the inclusion test, as it is unlikely to have been widely publicised in the media."

Aside from the few articles on this incident, there are no independent secondary sources on this subject published under editorial control. They are all articles and videos that the subject himself has created, or they were from blogs. I maintain that this article still does not meet the notability guidelines and should be deleted. Rogerthat94 (talk) 08:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep This person's career has advanced to meet WP:GNG and start to nudge slightly at WP:ENT... and, differently from the version that was deleted in 2011, independent secondary reliable sources with editorial oversite indeed cite this version of article. Using an essay as a rationale for deletion is fine, but I prefer looking to WP:DEL and seeing if the rationale falls within that list of valid deletion criteria. It's a suitable stub and it serves the project and its readers for this to remain and grow over time and through editorial effort.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 10:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * BLP1E also applies to this article. Do we assume every contributor to a cable network will grow to become notable? Rogerthat94 (talk) 11:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * BLP1E definitely does not apply, he's gotten news coverage for multiple events. Even though his union assailants will not be brought to justice in the eyes of the breitbartarians.--Milowent • hasspoken  11:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you provide any reputable independent secondary sources about the subject that aren't about the protest incident? Rogerthat94 (talk) 11:14, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Certainly. Look in the versions of the article that were substantially my content, not the versions created by his acolytes.--Milowent • hasspoken 11:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The 2012 CPAC "controversy" was one. It was also highly reported in left or right leaning news sources which I tend to avoid when I can find others.  I'll even exclude Talking Points Memo if I can.--Milowent • hasspoken  11:18, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Could you provide a link to any of the sources you are talking about, that mention something other than the protest incident? None of the CPAC articles that mention him satisfy WP:RS. WP:PSEUDO doesn't mention anything about article improvement. Either a subject is notable outside of a single event or not. There's no policy that says we should keep an article up and wait to see if the subject becomes notable for a standalone article. We should delete this article and recreate it if Crowder becomes notable for anything else, per the policy. Rogerthat94 (talk) 02:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: I created the current iteration of the article after the union coverage, noting that Crowder's press coverage had grown significantly.  Not all sources available on him are about the protest.  Is he super-notable?  No.  But I thought he had become notable enough to merit a new shot, especially when I realized he was also the "knicker" rap guy at at CPAC2012.  Also, the protest is still in the news as of yesterday:  (Spoiler:  No one is going to jail!!)  The "psuedo-biography" issue is really about article improvement, not deletion.  But it is a real problem with this article, and I hope this AfD draws more watchlisters to it.  Editors keep trying to rewrite this article (look at the talk page for extent of debate), mostly acolytes of Crowder.  Frankly, its a pain in my ass.  Secretly I would have a little relief if it gets deleted.--Milowent • hasspoken  11:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep: I was involved in both of the prior deletion reviews. The 2nd deletion was directly attributable to my actions because I didn't understand the deletion-recreation process back in the day.  If it were nominated today, I would not fight the deletion.  As for the current article, it is much improved over the original.  Crowder has achieved notability in secondary sources via the incident in Detroit, his activities at CPAC, his activities in MMA, and his punditry at Fox and Sun News, his acting gigs (via IMDB), and other sources.  The references have been MUCH improved thanks to a group of people who were interested in improving the article.  And while I agree the early-life bio is a little weak, a lot of good effort has been put out - and continues to be put out - in trying to find verifiable information.  Some information that was not verifiable has already been removed (such as the MySpace win) and continued efforts are being made to verify the rest of it. 5minutes (talk) 13:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * IMDB is specifically mentioned as not being reliable and thus not meeting the correct criteria. Could you provide examples of sources that do, which mention something other than the protest incident? The closest thing I found were posts about CPAC on blog sites like Gawker, and none of these were published by "professional journalists" or "professionals in the field on which they write." This means that they are not considered reliable sources and thus do not demonstrate notability. Rogerthat94 (talk) 13:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * When I mentioned IMDB, I am referring to his film career, not his biography. The other sources are listed in the article.  I'll let the admins decide, based on this discussion, if those sources are  notable enough. 5minutes (talk) 14:19, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * His film career does not meet ENT. In addition, the article focuses on his punditry and mentions almost nothing about his film career (aside from a list of films he mostly played minor roles in), and it hasn't changed since the first AfD discussion when it was brought up. None of the sources in the article (except for the one about the protest incident) meet the necessary criteria, which is why BLP1E applies. Rogerthat94 (talk) 15:27, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't say his film record met all the standards. I said it was a resource for the article.  Period.  Nothing more, nothing less.  Please stop reading into my statements. 5minutes (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It is a resource for the article, but it does not demonstrate notability. There are no sources on this subject, which demonstrate notability, except for sources on this one protest incident. Thus the article is a BLP1E. Rogerthat94 (talk) 00:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * We'll let the admins decide. I'm done with you.  5minutes (talk) 01:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is all too flimsy--a minor event here, a newspaper mention there. Drmies (talk) 14:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Redirect, subject has received significant coverage from multiple non-primary reliable sources, however most of those are about a single notable event. Therefore, per WP:BLP1E the article should be converted to a redirect to an article about the event. Like Sandra Fluke, if the subject receives significant coverage for other events, the article can always be recreated. I understand that the subject has posted a lot of commentary work, and has been interviewed as well, but on those things they do not have him (the subject of this AfD) as the primary subject of the content. As a writer (or even reporter) it is my opinion that he is not yet notable per WP:CREATIVE. As an actor it is my opinion that he is not yet notable per WP:NACTOR. It is too soon for a stand alone article, he maybe independently notable outside of the event one day, maybe if he speaks at a national convention (that was what changed Fluke from a BLP1E individual to a independently notable biography subject), but not today.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. WP:GNG has been met (HighBeam alone returns at least 30 different articles to a "Steven Crowder" search). I believe (from what I've seen here and elsewhere lately) that the proposer has far too little editing experience (102 article edits for Heaven's sake) to be in a position to evaluate the merits of one guideline over another (yes, the ones that have "best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions" splashed over their introductions). A piece of advice: get out into the real Wiki-world for a few years and find out what it's like to build content. I'm more than happy to help you with that if required. GFHandel &#9836; 03:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. The HighBeam articles are mostly about the beating incident. The rest appear to be passing mentions. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - The sources in the article are either (a) by Crowder; (b) mention him only in passing; or (c) blog-ish.  Am I missing the independent reliable sources that discuss Crowder in a significant way?  If the Americans for Prosperity tent incident was his claim to fame, then (as suggested above) an article on that event should be created.   --Noleander (talk) 05:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. WP:GNG I from Russia. In Russia his video translated from russian language and show in libertarian site. I think it is glory. dwertys &#9836;  03:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.180.216.247 (talk)
 * Delete One non-starring mildly significant movie role is not notability., and there is essentially nothing else.  DGG ( talk ) 21:01, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   10:13, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Crowder has received significant coverage, and not just for the event that those in favor of deletion are claiming, but for his involvement in media and CPAC. He is a relatively major part of the conservative media circuit and meets WP:GNG. Ducknish (talk) 19:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep He gets coverage for things, not just people beating him senseless and cutting his tent down at an event.   D r e a m Focus  22:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Could you provide a source for any of this coverage beyond the one protest event? The example you gave falls under WP:SPS. Rogerthat94 (talk) 02:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not a self published source. He works for Fox News, not the Daily Bail.  Plenty of coverage for the other thing, and this unrelated thing gets coverage also.  Detroit Free Press covers something else he did.    D r e a m Focus  05:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you may be misunderstanding WP:SPS. The link to the Detroit Free Press is much better, but it still appears to go to one of their blog posts, not one of their news articles. Rogerthat94 (talk) 20:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, I just noticed in the last hour that Crowder got new round of press for trying to tell a "joke" involving Ashley Judd and rape.. He must have seen this AfD was relisted and spiced up his act for CPAC over the weekend.--Milowent • hasspoken  05:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Has this event, or any other besides the protest, been covered in any sources that meet WP:RS? Rogerthat94 (talk) 20:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Mother Jones (magazine) is a reliable source. Just look at the news results this guy gets for all sorts of things.   D r e a m Focus  20:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, this wasn't published as an article in the magazine. It's listed on their blog section. Rogerthat94 (talk) 21:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It was written by Tim Murphy, a paid reporter who works for them.  D r e a m Focus  21:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The author being paid doesn't automatically satisfy WP:NEWSBLOG. Plenty of websites will pay bloggers who aren't professional journalists or experts. Rogerthat94 (talk) 21:26, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Click his name. It shows he is in fact a professional reporter.   D r e a m Focus  22:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It says he is a reporter who blogged about a road trip. There's no mention of any journalism school, certification, or the word "professional". Rogerthat94 (talk) 22:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Tim Murphy is a reporter in MoJo's DC bureau. Last summer he logged 22,000 miles while blogging about his cross-country road trip for Mother Jones. His writing has been featured in Slate and the Washington Monthly.  D r e a m Focus  22:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Saying something was posted in the "blog" section of a good news source is always a questionable argument, and getting worse as more and more dead tree publications go belly up. In any event, here a dead tree article just from yesterday, which will make Crowder's posse bezerk.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  21:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This article is absolutely a reliable source. It's in the news section, not the blog section. However, it still only covers the subject in the context of the protest incident. Reliable sources isn't a question about paper vs. online. It's a question about self-publishing and editorial control. Rogerthat94 (talk) 21:26, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The other things he's gotten press on would be the 2012 CPAC knickers/nigger joke and the 2013 CPAC ashley-judd-rape-joke. Quality of sources generally not as good as mainstream newspapers.  There have also been a large number of less significant press mentions for other stuff, e.g., --Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  21:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Was it really necessary to write out that word here? Anyway, Both Gawker and Mediaite are blogs and fall under WP:SPS Rogerthat94 (talk) 22:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What word? That's why the event is notable.  And gawker and mediate are not SPS, that claim is absurd.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  00:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not commenting on the AfD, just that the constant references to SPS above are misplaced. I don't know why there is a bias against certain types of publishing models, but sites like Gawker are more RS than most newspapers. Obviously some pieces are opinion, just like any publication, but they have a regular staff of professional writers, they update articles that are found to be inaccurate or even misleading, and they cite sources, usually within the text of the article. They do publish rumors and they publish quickly, but they do not present rumors or speculation as fact. Notice how this this story was not only updated to not be misleading, but they explicitly stated how it was updated and what was accidentally misleading about it. How many morning papers do that? If you have further concerns about a source's SPSitude, please take it to the RS noticeboard, and quit derailing the conversation. I appreciate that your bias is towards traditional media, but it is still a bias and does not help in this sort of discussion.▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  06:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Adequately sourced to pass GNG; see especially the NY Times piece. Journalists are notoriously hard to "source out," since other media venues do not as a rule cover those working for their competition in depth. The subject is an adequately large figure in the mainsteam media to justify encyclopedic biography. The piece can obviously be improved, as it most certainly will be over time. Carrite (talk) 19:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Adequately sourced. –  SJ  +  02:39, 24 March 2013 (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.