Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Andrew Dunckelman (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. Spartaz Humbug! 03:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

William Andrew Dunckelman
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

No significant claim to notability beyond a few local events. Extremely promotional in tone, and reads like a thinly-veiled resume. Links mostly discuss minor events, and do not establish "significant coverage". The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 17:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- -- Cirt (talk) 18:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Article is well sourced, with inline citations. The references are newspapers (Reliable sources) and have multiple articles specifically about him (not just in passing). He has received at least 3 rewards (all sourced). He meets every requirement of WP:Notability. I am confused why this was even proposed. Turlo Lomon (talk) 17:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The things they're talking about are of minimal importance. He was a Junior member at some party for a college, he heads a club at a college, he got some award from a toy company, got some award when he was a young teen, and another one 6 years later.  The awards themselves aren't particularly notable, even put together. Therefore, I'm not seeing how they make the subject notable.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 17:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's review WP:Notability. Significant coverage - Check. Multiple articles written specifically about him. Reliable - Check. Multiple sources from newspapers. Sources - Check. Sources are secondary. Independent of the subject - Check. Subject has no connection to newspapers. Presumed - This is where we differ.  Now, let's check Notability (people).  "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]".  Based on my understanding of policy, this article should stay. Turlo Lomon (talk) 17:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong delete. Agree with the Blade's recent comment. It seems obvious to me that by someone adding this to Category:Louisiana Republicans, that this entire article is an attempt at promotion for some possible future political engagement. The sources aren't all valid (Facebook, duplicates) and I think what sets this article over the top is the awards given aren't notable. My niece is 8 and has won 20-30 awards for various things, including lots of dance competitions but also some small "community" efforts similar to this topic. This does not make her notable, and frankly William Andrew Dunckelman's awards don't make him notable. They are all local. I mean, the article says he "paraded down the field of Tiger Stadium during halftime." So? This article is a stretch, plain and simple, in many directions. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 17:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The article says:
 * Born in Louisiana. Has a dad and family, goes to church. So what.
 * Valedictorian at high school, studying political science in college. So what.
 * One paragraph that says he's done some things and won some small awards. Ok
 * Received another award. So what.
 * Junior member of a college homecoming court. Was on the field. So what!
 * So there's the article in summary. Nothing worth keeping. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 18:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Where in WP:Notability does it require coverage to be important? No where. It requires coverage to establish notability, and this individual has it. Each of your statements I agree with - but the fact that newspapers are covering him in detail over multiple events is what makes him notabile. That is my understanding of policy. What you are stating is WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and that is not a valid reason for deletion. Turlo Lomon (talk) 18:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd think that common sense would dictate that; otherwise we'd have articles on every single street in the US. Morehouse Road gets mentioned almost every day in several papers where I live; you'll note that it's a redlink, because despite the coverage it gets (being one of the few main roads in the town it's in), it's totally insignificant.  My name is in several papers in and around where I live, I help run my college's history club, and I've received national recognition (I'm an Eagle Scout, and that gets distributed in a couple of national publications); I'm not at all notable.  Same concept applies here; newspapers will cover ordinary things because they have to fill their pages, not necessarily because the events are significant.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 18:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:MILL does not mention people - at all. This would be comparing apples to oranges. My understanding of policy is stated above. Where exactly am I misinterpretting policy? Turlo Lomon (talk) 18:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Even if WP:MILL doesn't explicitly say people, it's certainly implied. My take on WP:GNG was that the conditions you described above presume notability, but don't necessarily make it so (I wouldn't necessarily call your view a misinterpretation, just a difference of opinion); this article is a good example of why I think that's the case. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 18:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, my nieces has a bunch of awards and has been in multiple newspapers for them. The awards themselves are not significant. Are you saying I should start a page for her? &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 18:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't encourage them. Dream Focus would fight to the bitter end to ensure that your niece has her own Wikipedia article.  Snotty Wong   chat 15:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep He has won notable awards. The awards are notable enough by Wikipedia standards to have their own articles Prudential Spirit of Community Award, then they count towards the person's notability.   D r e a m Focus  02:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I added a link to a People Magazine article that mentioned him. He has been covered on CNN as well.  That's notable coverage.    D r e a m Focus  02:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So that's one award, which is the only one with any coverage here on Wikipedia. If that's it, I'd argue that it's BLP1E.  The rest of these awards are totally non-notable; running a college club and being Junior member at a typical college party don't mean anything, nor does winning some award from Build-a-Bear workshop.  And being covered once by CNN or People doesn't mean much; we certainly don't write about everyone who gets caught on CNN cameras trying to evade police or everyone who donates some money to some star's charity, nor should we write about someone who has a one-off, insignificant appearance like the ones on CNN or in People, like this person.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 02:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Fancruft. Not notable by any reasonable interpretation of the notability guidelines.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  06:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTABLE says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." How is he not notable if major news sources are talking about him and interviewing him?   D r e a m Focus  09:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Because presumed ≠ inherent. If a person is presumed to be notable, it doesn't necessarily mean that the person actually is; it just means that there's a higher chance.  This article is a great example of why the word "presumed" instead of "inherent" is used.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 15:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Obvious Delete - This person has clearly not done anything notable per WP:N. If the argument is that his community service award is notable (with which I don't agree), then that still falls under WP:BLP1E.  Snotty Wong   spill the beans 15:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron.  Snotty Wong   prattle 15:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete promo. Wile E. Heresiarch (talk) 07:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: sourcing is substantially tangential, local, tabloid, primary, affiliated-party and/or unreliable (particularly PR Newswire) coverage, and does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Nor does topic appear to meet WP:BIO. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:33, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per past precedent - wannabe politicians are not granted web space here (Harry Wilson (businessman) is a rare example otherwise). When he gets elected to the Parish government or state office, then we'll talk. Bearian (talk) 16:06, 27 December 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.