Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Martin (activist)


 * 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. Jayjg (talk) 02:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Tom Martin (activist)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article clearly fails WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT The subject has made the news solely for his (currently unresolved) sex discrimination court case against the London School of Economics. Depending on the outcome, the case may prove to be a landmark one and worthy of an article, but until Mr. Martin is notable for more than initiating a court case, he does not meet the criteria for inclusion here. Slp1 (talk) 13:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Martin is notable for one event. Currently, not even the event itself, a court case, seems to be notable. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 16:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Tom Martin is a notable person making a large impact on society. He is already known for more than merely initiating a court case, though that was the primary matter than brought him to public attention.
 * Regarding WP:BLP1E, the article quit clearly contains information on more than one event that Mr Martin is associated with: it currently discusses a court case; newspaper and other media coverage; and a video.
 * Regarding WP:NOT, the article is not about news but about an individual who is involved in current/recent news. The mention of news within the article is entirely within guidelines as it might perhaps not (yet) justify its own separate article. The article on Tom Martin does not break any of the three sections in WP:NOT.
 * Regarding the one event guideline, this is about whether to create one or two subjects, not whether to create none at all. There is nothing against a single important event being covered (e.g. 2011 attack on the British Embassy in Iran) and even if the current case dissolves into nothing, Mr Martin's actions - and therefore himself as a subject - will have a large and widespread effect. --Douglas1958 (talk) 12:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for participating here, Douglas, but I don't think you are reading the policies and guidelines correctly. The only reason that Martin has received some coverage in the media at the beginning of September is because of the launch of the court case, the one event.  Making an youtube video, and giving interview including a podcast interview on a men's rights website (voice for men) doesn't count as separate events. We know nothing about Mr. Martin or about his life except information related to this case, because he is not notable for anything else.
 * The point of WP:NOTNEWS is that WP does not seek to report news "as it happens" as a newspaper does. As the policy says "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion", and in thus in my opinion, this article does actually break this policy too.
 * Wikipedia is also not a crystal ball. It may be that in the future "Mr Martin's actions - and therefore himself as a subject - will have a large and widespread effect" as you put it. But it hasn't happened yet, and when/if it does, the article will be justified and can be recreated. Slp1 (talk) 23:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Slp1 is correct in his/her interpretation of WP:ONEEVENT. This person is not notable for anything except raising a large stink and filing a court case over one class he took at one university. And even if the court case eventually becomes significant, the usual policy would be to write an article about the court case rather than about the plaintiff. Also, the references cited are not impressive; they mostly reflect publicity-seeking rather than genuine notability. --MelanieN (talk) 01:12, 4 December 2011 (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.