Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timothy Doner


 * 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 Merge to Polyglotism. (non-admin closure) czar ♔  22:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Timothy Doner

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This person does not need a Wikipedia page. This other wikipedia member also agrees - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Timothy_Doner. Paperpaste (talk) 16:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but for people like me who have heard for the first time that a Wolof language exists thanks to his page, he is a role model. Certainly this is just a side commentary. I may return with something more blue-linked later. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 17:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 *  Unsure  Merge into Polyglotism. There are many independent secondary sources I can find for this person     but Wikipedia is not a tabloid and I'm uncomfortable about having sensationalist articles about someone who's only known for having a rare skill. I can't find anything in the policies, guidelines or articles about this, so I'm going to ask on the Village Pump. &mdash;gorgan_almighty (talk) 20:04, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Here is a link to the Village Pump post. &mdash;gorgan_almighty (talk) 20:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I can think of other possible arguments not to keep this article, notably WP:BLP1E, but "sensationalist" and "tabloid" just don't apply to a subject with solid sourcing in The New York Times, The Washington Post, BBC News, and The Economist. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP1E doesn't really apply because there's no event here. But it addresses the same sort of issue, that the usual sources aren't always as strict in their inclusion criteria as we are, so we need to consider carefully whether individual articles in secondary sources actually constitute notability. WP:GNG says:


 * "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.


 * It also says:


 * Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources.


 * I would argue that all of the sources mentioned above are minor news stories and don't lend enough significance to the subject matter to assert notability. If this guy goes on to do something really significant using his skill then fair enough, but he shouldn't be considered notable simply for having a skill. &mdash;gorgan_almighty (talk) 21:59, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, these are not "minor news stories", they are substantial features in some of the world's leading news sources. There is no basis for our distinguishing between "having" and "doing"; the sources (especially gold standard sources like these) decide what's of interest, not us. Again, there are other possible reasons to delete this, but not a failure of coverage. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:12, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:58, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:58, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm gonna suggest a merge into polyglotism. Certainly this is not a public figure that needs to be identified by the general public, but he is a notable example of the concept of hyperpolyglotism. I think that a paragraph at that article might be the best way to handle such a well-sourced example of this phenomenon. VanIsaacWScont 23:02, 20 May 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.