Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zach Paikin


 * 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! 09:14, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Zach Paikin

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )



A Canadian student and son of a television host (Steve Paikin), who is a member of a few clubs, has won a few awards, has written articles for a few publications, and may seek nomination as a candidate in the 2015 federal election. He may merit inclusion in the future, but not now. Mind matrix  13:35, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Hi, I admit he is very young. But he is a genius who is going to save the Liberal party like the world in Ender's Game. This Canadian student is already an alumni and a prospective baby-politician who writes and appears with comments and interviews in prestigious magazines, what others in his age don't. Him we owe a good article. He will enrich the Wikipedia biographies' collection! Leave him, don't delete him! --Stonepillar (talk) 15:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:BIO, which describes the circumstances under which individuals are deemed "notable" enough to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. Moreover, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so predicting that a 22-year old will somehow "save the Liberal party" is anathema to the project. Mind  matrix  15:36, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course this was a joke. But not a joke is, if you present Nazi advertisement on your personal page.--Stonepillar (talk) 15:55, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * First, I parody the use of Nazi symbolism, I am not advertising it. Second, the contents of any user's page have no bearing on a deletion discussion about an article; if you have an issue with a user's personal page, raise it at that user's talk page. Third, if your intent was to disparage me, please read WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Fourth, what do you mean by "Of course this was a joke"? The posting of the article, or stating that Paikin will save the party? The point of AfD is to have a serious discussion about the merits of retaining or deleting an article, not to engage in banter and jokes. Mind  matrix  16:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Dear Mindmatrix, of course it is a serious matter, to turn an AFD on a good article about an honorous but very young person. Perhaps we must clarify what the minimum age is to present a person to Wiki. The other question is that showing of Nazi symbols and presentation of SS symbols on a Wiki page for whatever purposes is a very serious matter!--Stonepillar (talk) 16:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Once again, please read WP:BIO. There is no age limit, only notability guidelines. And once again, what appears on my userpage (which I've already explained) is not germane to this discussion. Mind  matrix  17:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Stonepillar, you may or may not be aware of this, but just for the record accusations of being a Nazi are a rather frequent feature of Wikipedia which are regularly deployed at anybody who doesn't blindly submit to what the accuser wants — virtually every administrator on here (me and Mindmatrix both included) has been accused of being a Nazi or a fascist many, many times for simply enforcing the rules of the place, and Mindmatrix is parodying that kind of overheated language on his userpage, not "advertising" it. You don't have to like it, and there are other venues where you can take it up for discussion if you have an issue with it — but it is not germane to this discussion, which is about the Zach Paikin article and not about anybody's userpage. Consider yourself advised that you need to drop this line of attack — I'm more than willing to consider putting you on a temporary editblock for violating WP:AGF and WP:DISRUPT if you continue to stray off topic. Bearcat (talk) 18:44, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Stonepillar, see also the well known and established law of the universe Godwin's law which makes any mention of Nazi's or Hitler almost a guaranteed loosing gambit. -- Green  C  14:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Per WP:POLITICIAN, a person does not qualify for an article on Wikipedia just for being a candidate in a future election — and given that he withdrew his candidacy this week, he isn't even verifiably that anymore, and all we can do is crystal ball the possibility that he might change his mind again in the future, or run in a different election instead. It's not a question of "minimum age" — a newborn baby can be notable enough for Wikipedia if he or she manages to pass WP:GNG, and a 90-year-old person can be not notable enough for Wikipedia if he or she doesn't — rather, it's a question of minimum sourceable/notable accomplishment. If he actually wins a future election, then he'll certainly qualify for an article at that time, but a person in politics (regardless of their age) has to win election to a notable office (not just run for one) to qualify for a Wikipedia article. Especially if that article is relying primarily on the person's own social media presence for sourcing; Facebook and LinkedIn are not reliable sources for our purposes. We do not "owe" him anything on here, contrary to Stonepillar's assertions above — a person does not get to have an article on here until they can be properly sourced as having accomplished something that gets them past one or more of our notability rules. Having an article on Wikipedia is not an entitlement that anybody automatically gets just for existing. Bearcat (talk) 17:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * A lot of the fellowships listed as justification for Zach Paikin's greatness were unpaid internships arranged for by his father. They did not produce substantive work and were not prestigious.  Paikin is hardly a journalist.  He has never once been paid for his written work or for his television appearances.  He is nothing more than an avid journalism volunteer.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.138.55 (talk) 21:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:57, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete, I don't see how he qualifies as notable under either WP:POLITICIAN or JOURNALIST.  PK  T (alk)  18:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Lacks sufficient notability. Can be adequately covered with a paragraph within his father's bio. Canuckle (talk) 23:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep . Of course Zach Paikin is a journalist: Only in the past two years he published 51 articles, columns etc. in iPolitics and more than 20 in Huffingtonpost. See also the selection of articles about him in the expanded version about Zach Paikin.--Stonepillar (talk) 10:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You've already added your !vote above; each editor may only add one !vote, but can make any number of additional comments. Mind  matrix  14:10, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Having content published in iPolitics and HuffPo does not, in and of itself, qualify one as a 'journalist'; furthermore, even if it did, that would not in and of itself bestow notability as per Wikipedia criteria. My inclination is to say that the younger Mr Paikin is not yet notable, and that we can revisit this issue in a few years, or earlier if circumstances merit; for now, we can fold this into the article about his father. DS (talk) 13:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * REMOVE There is no valid reason for this page to exist. None of the subject's 'accomplishments' are notable whether taken individually or together. Successfully completing a BA, contributing (unpaid) articles, having a famous father, being awarded unimportant prizes from private organizations, or being active in a political party are not notable. Remove the famous father and the publicity-seeking behavior of the subject and this biography could apply to countless young university grads active in a political party (including the subject's two siblings). More to the point, he hasn't run for public office or held ANY important position in either the public or private sector, so basically this biography is about a very successful university student who may, or may not, run for for office in the future and is currently notable for his exceptional ability to command the public spotlight. --Tor editor (talk) 16:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - let's be serious; this is a run of the mill blogger and Up and coming political activist. He's not notable per WP:GNG, and the trend here has be to be increasingly restrictive, especially about political biographies. Bearian (talk) 17:10, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete He might run for some office next year, in which case he might win. I don't understand enough to even be sure that if he won he would be notable, but he clearly isn't yet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. One reliable source - - is a good start, but we need multiple ones for WP:BIO/WP:GNG. If more independent, mainstream sources can be presented, he would meet the threshold for inclusion. Otherwise I'd recommend to userfy it; it's a good start and he may gain sufficient notability to merit an article in a year or two - no point in wasting this good start. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  06:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep – With a little more research, it turns out the subject does meet WP:GNG through significant coverage in multiple third-party sources. To cite some examples: March 17 article about him from the National Post, January 2012 article with some coverage of him from CBC News, January 2012 coverage of him in Maclean's, January 2012 article about him in The Canadian Jewish News, March 17 article in The Hamilton Spectator, and January 2012 profile in The Globe and Mail. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 17:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Some of those aren't substantial coverage of him, but merely mention his name in passing within an article that's substantively about something else — and the Maclean's piece is a blurb so brief that it actually fails to constitute substantive coverage of anything or anyone whatsoever. And even the pieces which are about him in a meaningful enough way to constitute substantive coverage of him still fail to demonstrate that he's accomplished anything that would get him through one of Wikipedia's inclusion gates — every last one of them is about his candidacy for a position that he didn't actually win, but as has been pointed out above merely being a candidate for something, even if you can source it well, is not a sufficient claim of notability on its own. We don't even keep unsuccessful candidates for a party's public leadership role anymore if they're not sufficiently notable for something else besides that, let alone unsuccessful candidates for a role in the party's internal org chart. George Takach was (and still is) just as readily referenceable as Paikin is, for example, but he wasn't sourceable for anything notable enough to get an independent article, because none of the referencing discussed him outside of the specific context of an unsuccessful candidacy. Bearcat (talk) 18:29, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * (I get the sense we might have to agree to disagree about this.) It's not required that he be successful. WP:POLITICIAN point #3 specifically points out that "... such people [unelected candidates for political office] can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article'." The profiles in The Globe and Mail and the Canadian Jewish News, supplemented by a few of the others, would be enough, in my view. Most unsuccessful candidates would not meet notability requirements, but that's because most do not have the national profile that Paikin has. Most unelected candidates do not have Michael Posner writing a Saturday feature article about them. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 18:47, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, the thing is that criterion was meant primarily to accomodate unsuccessful political candidates who've passed another notability guideline, such as having been notable as a writer or an athlete before throwing their hat into the political ring. With isolated exceptions that would require a much greater volume of coverage than this, it wasn't really meant to allow people who have garnered coverage only in the context of their candidacy itself — because local media have an obligation to give "equal time" to candidates in an election, it's always possible to write a sourced article about any candidate in any election (it's just not always possible to write one that demonstrates enough notability.) So interpreting it as "any candidate who gets media coverage at all" wouldn't actually rule any unelected candidates out at all, because all candidates (even the fringiest no-hopers) get some media coverage — but what all candidates don't have is a compelling reason why they would warrant permanent coverage in an international encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 20:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * '''Note'" - The actual article has been expanded and improved! The author--Stonepillar (talk) 09:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Not by much, you didn't. Most of what you did was to simply add sections to the article that consisted solely of comprehensive offsite linklists, an WP:ELNO violation that had to be removed; that's never appropriate Wikipedia content. Offsite links may exist only in footnoted references or the external links section of the article — and even in the latter section, you cannot just add a massive linkfarm; even there, you may add only his own primary website itself and may not compile a comprehensive directory of every individual piece he ever wrote for iPolitics or HuffPo. You didn't add anything that actually constituted any substantive improvement in the article's basic notability claim, however. Bearcat (talk) 01:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: Don't Delete But Improve! is a popular Wiki rule. Hi all! Of course the guy should change his life according your taste and Wiki rules. But you are all free to change or improve the article. It takes a lot of study and research in this "wonder boy" who nearly every day appears in the media. If you have better ideas go deeper with the research about this guy!--Stonepillar (talk) 05:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep I can see good arguments either way, this is a borderline case. Rather than voting based on the guidelines, which I could easily argue on either side, I will IAR and vote based on a personal opinion that this is a topic barely worth keeping for now, and perhaps in a few years if nothing has changed it should be revisited. -- Green  C  14:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: You Have No Right To Delete! I've just found a report in National Post about student leader Leo Bureau-Blouin, 20 years young, and what a wonder: he is honored with an article in Wikpedia, even a very poor one, a stub. In this case nobody of you requested deletion. The article about Zach is much more comprehensive and of much more quality! How arbitrate is your interpretation of Wiki-Rules!--Stonepillar (talk) 22:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Stonepillar, are you secretly Zach Paikin? If you haven't noticed, Bureau-Blouin won an election and is a member of the NA. He was also a student leader for a prominent organization which had significant involvement in the student protest movement (with significant real-world effects). The fact that another wiki page is a stub is not an argument for keeping this page; it's an argument for expanding the stub. Yes, this page is much more 'comprehensive' but it reiterates the same point over and over while telling us nothing about why the individual is prominent and warrants a page.Tor editor (talk) 22:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * (ec) The reason that article is retained is because it satisfies the inclusion criteria per WP:POLITICIAN (point 1): "have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature". You've become fixated on age, which was not one of my concerns for deleting Paikin's article. (Read my deletion comments again - age was never mentioned.) Mind  matrix  22:48, 24 March 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.