Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyler Young


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 08:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Tyler Young

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Bringing straight to AFD as I see a PROD as potentially contested, and as sources given attempt to assert notability, so I don't see a speedy deletion as appropriate. Founder of an LGBT group (Gay in Federal Way) that appears to have no notability beyond that, he's been mentioned in some LGBT press over an incident it appears, but that would go down as the one event rule. The organisation themselves look to be of dubious notability, but I'll leave that for someone else to decide the AFD-worthiness of. Esteffect (talk) 04:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The group didn't just get some "gay press." They got KOMO 4 News, the most award winning and highly reputed tv news station in Washington State. If you go to the Gay in Federal Way story on KOMO you'll see they had the most viewed and most commented story for that day and for the following days, something really rare. They have also been mentioned in the Federal Way Mirror, The Stranger, and others. You're also missing the fact that Gay in Federal Way is the first gay group ever created in Federal Way, one of the largest (and yet somehow least culturally developed) cities in Washington. The creation of the group, with the key player being the groups founder/organizer, is a watershed moment for the city. I'm also not done editing the article, need a little more time, and I have more references. ElmerBront (talk) 22:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect. While I concur that there are reliable sources available, they focus on the organization, rather than the founder. Cindamuse (talk) 23:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The KOMO article was in the "people" section on KOMO's website. They did the story to firstly feature the organizer, who is controversial in the city. I've just added more to the bio to show relevance, including other things he's done and got coverage on not related to the Gay in Federal Way organization, I didn't have time to finish it when I started (and when it was nominated for deletion). Added some references, and have a few more I am looking for about the article Auburn Mayor Bob Roegner wrote in response to his protest. ElmerBront (talk) 00:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Even so, I think that the one notable incident doesn't distinguish the individual enough to prevent this from being a WP:BLP1E. The organisation seems notable, and so any information on the founder in relation to that should logically be merged. The other coverage doesn't look widespread beyond the local and LGBT press, and the larger coverage seems to be centred chiefly on the organisation and himself. Esteffect (talk) 02:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please reread the article Esteffect, I just added a lot to it showing it's more than one incident, and giving it enough unique referenced information not related to the group to have it qualify for its own article. ElmerBront (talk) 03:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Big  top   みんな空の下  (  トーク  ) 08:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Big  top   みんな空の下  (  トーク  ) 08:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - with the exception of a couple of paragraphs about the rape protest all coverage of the individual is in relation to the formation and activities of the organization. Sourcing is dubious; letters to the editor and blog posts for a lot of it. Per WP:N coverage that amounts to identifying a person as part of a group or identifying them for purposes of attributing a quote don't establish notability. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 22:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep This article seems bigger and more thought out than the orgs page; maybe delete that one. Sources dubious? I didn't know newspapers and news stations weren't reliable sources. I guess we better delete a 100 million dubious references now from wikipedia. 174.24.205.198 (talk) 07:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Letters to the editor and blogs, as well as television reports on the fallout from Young's activism are not considered reliable sources for inclusion on Wikipedia. Regardless of the status of another article, or its use of unreliable sources matters little here. Each article stands or falls on its own merits. Cindamuse (talk) 09:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep See prior comments for reasons. ElmerBront (talk) 05:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Just in case the closing administrator overlooks, ElmerBlont made the first comment arguing its case (whilst not explicitly stating to keep; just so he isn't counted twice). Esteffect (talk) 15:23, 17 August 2010 (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.