Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyler Young (2nd 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   delete. The arguments for keep are reasonable but the consensus tends toward deletion. — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 07:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Tyler Young
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This article was previously nominated for deletion back in 2010, and was "no-consensused", on the grounds of weak keep !votes from an IP and the article's creator. Given more time one would expect additional information to have become available if this person was truly notable, but that seems to have not been the case, and the concerns that led to the original nomination still stand: that while this person may well be a good person fighting for a good cause, he doesn't appear to meet the notability standards for an article. The organisation he founded may be possibly be notable, but notability is not inherited, and the only significant thing that he has done outside of the organisation is a single protest. The Bushranger One ping only 03:23, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Not notable. His claims to fame seem to be based on letters-to-the-editor and blog comments, plus a "small protest" that seemed to consist of him holding up a sign and writing a letter to the editor. Pretty much nothing in Reliable Sources. Even the items in the Federal Way Mirror, which probably is a Reliable Source for news coverage, are not news items; they consist of opinion columns (one of them written by Young himself) and letters-to-the-editor (most written by Young himself). --MelanieN (talk) 02:39, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 13:23, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - Not sure if the organization Gay in Federal Way or its founder, Tyler Young, are notable in WP terms. Let's look:
 * "Being Gay in Federal Way - Out life in Federal Way not quite like Seattle," by James Whitely in Seattle Gay News counts as one... Carrite (talk) 15:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And THIS REPORT on KOMO-TV is certainly substantial, published coverage of the topic on a so-called reliable source... Carrite (talk) 15:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, that seems to be the good stuff. Is that "multiple"? Piece is the work of a single purpose account, quite possibly the subject of the article. That's a big minus. Carrite (talk) 15:57, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep on the basis of the above two cited sources. Some people like to see three good sources; others raise the bar for self-promotion. I'm inclusionist by nature for borderline subjects such as this; WP is better of with it than without it, in my estimation. Carrite (talk) 15:57, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep – Meets WP:BASIC per, . Northamerica1000(talk) 20:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment The two sources are hyperlocal, and they are both about the same thing, namely that one individual said nasty things to the subject in a letter to the editor; is this really enough for notability? Really?? --MelanieN (talk) 22:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * They are both on the group, but not on a specific event related to the group. Whether the piece is on the founder with the group name as a redirect, or the group with the founder name as a redirect, is neither here nor there. That they are local sources is irrelevant. Carrite (talk) 22:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "Local coverage only" has been considered very relevant in the past. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Multiple sources almost always trumps locality under GNG. Whether two good sources count as "multiple" here is a reasonable question. Carrite (talk) 05:13, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Just the opposite. That a source is very local is in many but not all cases a reason for considering it indiscriminate and therefore not a RS. No number of nonRSs = an RS.  DGG ( talk ) 00:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, technically, the reliablity of a source isn't based on how local it is, but it can be a basis of notability. For instance, WP:CLUB says Organizations whose activities are local in scope (e.g., a school or club) can be considered be notable if there is substantial verifiable evidence of coverage by reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area. - while that is, of coure, for orgs and not people, it's a reasonable benchmark. If you haven't been covered outside of your local area, it's likely you're not notable. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Sorry, but this one falls considerably short of WP:BIO requirements. And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:47, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 02:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak keep delete I don't have the time right now to dig around and see what other sources may exist but I think per Northamerica1000, they may have just inched over notability threshold. If no other improvements are made however, I can see this being renominated if Young or his group don't get more coverage in media sources. I also wonder if he is in some suburb where local press is simply not available online but has gone into more depth, or like in many cities, there are alternative newspress that would be considered reliable but do not cross-publish some or any content online. Insomesia (talk) 17:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Very borderline notability at best and primarily promotional. The bulk of the article is devoted to him expressing his views. When a promotional article like this is also about something that would at the very most be barely notable, its a good reason for rejection. I don;'t think it's fixable because there wouldn't be anything much left, but if it is kept, I'll give it a try by removing the quotes.  DGG ( talk ) 00:53, 7 September 2012 (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.