Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Cernovich (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 keep. Consensus seems to have turned towards keeping the article, particularly after noting the The New Yorker article. Joyous! | Talk 14:45, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Cernovich

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The majority of content is sourced to a single opinion piece in the New Yorker: Trolls for Trump. It's used to make a number of unattributed claims about the subject. Without it we're left with passing mentions in RS and the author's self-published blogs and tweets. James J. Lambden (talk) 02:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – as nominator. James J. Lambden (talk) 05:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You keep saying that it's an opinion, but I do not see where that's coming from. It's based on direct reporting. How is it an opinion? Grayfell (talk) 02:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NEWSORG, specifically:

Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors...

Comments such as "His political analysis was nearly as crass as his dating advice" and "Without months of priming by Cernovich and others, Clinton’s collapse might have been seen as an isolated event" suggest both opinion and analysis. James J. Lambden (talk) 03:04, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an opinion piece as its commonly defined. A lengthier profile is not expected to be in the same news style as a blurb, nor would that make it more desirable or reliable. Not every example of a journalist's perspective is editorial commentary, and not every (arguably) subjective opinion discredits an entire article. Journalists are expected to interpret and connect different aspects of a topic to form a digestible summary. That's the entire point of this kind of story. Grayfell (talk) 03:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What's relevant is how policy defines it which I've quoted. Opinion pieces, like the New Yorker's long form, encourage authors to take a position and support it which colors the article's claims; it's not the disinterested standard we require for factual claims and why we require attribution by policy. It would be good to give uninvolved editors a chance to weigh in. James J. Lambden (talk) 03:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who's stopping them? There are problems with your stated reason for deleting this article which need to be addressed. Virtually all long form articles like this will include the reporter's conclusions about the topic. Not all of those conclusions are incontrovertable or will be agreeable to all readers, but that's not a realistic goal, and that doesn't diminish the article. Those conclusions can be contorted into being labeled as "opinions" but that doesn't make this an editorial or opinion piece. What's the actual opinion being stated? That Cernovich is sometimes "crass"? That Cernovich's comments primed his readers to accept a conspiracy theory about Clinton? Neither of those are meaningfully opinions, nor particularly controversial. There is no such thing as journalism which refuses to draw any conclusions. Grayfell (talk) 05:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are more than enough reliable sources for this person, the subject is very notable, they were profiled in The New Yorker and have gotten a lot of media coverage. Nominating this page for deletion is ridiculous. The editor who nominated it for deletion, James J. Lambden, has this on their Wikipedia user page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:James_J._Lambden

Yes, an obnoxious picture of Donald Trump. Is it any surprise they'd want to delete the page of an ardent Trump supporter? Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral towards its subject matter and not have a political agenda. Neptune's Trident (talk) 04:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stick to the merits. You claim he has "a lot of media coverage" – if so I can't find it. In fact, coverage is apparently so minimal almost every paragraph in the article relies fully or partially on the single New Yorker piece (search the article page for "[3]" to confirm.) I tried to salvage it with proper RS, then by removing opinionated claims, but it soon became clear we'd be left with a stub. If other sources do exist the sooner they're added the better. James J. Lambden (talk) 05:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neptune's Trident, your comment is known as an ad hominem attack. Take it to James' user talk, but it has no place in an AfD. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The New Yorker article is in-depth biographical reporting about Cernovich. Although the other independent sources do not go into as much detail, the sources taken as a whole are sufficient to establish notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:27, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Aside from being an author and covered or quoted in The Daily Beast, Slate, Salon, Breitbart News, New York Times, The Washington Post, the Observer, and New York Magazine...the New Yorker - the premier literary magazine of the United States - thought the subject was newsworthy enough to publish a long-form story. I agree with Cullen328, the sources taken as a whole are sufficient to establish notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenjaminJunto (talk • contribs) 21:48, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The BLP subject has requested that this article be deleted.[1] The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 01:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how we determine what becomes an article. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:15, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Here's a WP:RS that mentions him [2] -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:48, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added this WP:RS to the article. Neptune's Trident (talk) 17:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Creating articles based on whatever topics that a bunch of radical left blogs and newspapers deem newsworthy sets a dangerous precedent. Citing Salon is particularly absurd, as it is perhaps one of the top three most disgusting smear websites operating today. Hidden Tempo (talk) 22:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly satisfies our notability guidelines, as obvious after looking at Google [3] and following the corresponding links/references. There are actually hundreds of them. My very best wishes (talk) 18:16, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - 2 more reliable sources (both from the New York Times and not opinion pieces) [4] [5] -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 02:49, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If he's notable enough for the New Yorker, he's notable enough for Wikipedia. Besides, I have a feeling we'll hear a lot about Mike in the years to come as the rocks are turned over and the Alt-Right insects have to leave the nest. Chisme (talk) 15:28, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete There literally only 2 articles from legitimate sources and one video interview cited in the article. The rest are not acceptable sources for Wikipedia (such as his own site) or reference him once and that's it. This guy doesn't even pass any of the criteria for WP:AUTHOR. Transcendence (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just added this CBS News source [6] to the article -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:31, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- This is literally just a reference to his tweet. This is prevalent throughout the vast majority of the citations that are not just form his own blog (which by the way fails the independence requirement for WP:GNG). This is not accepted under WP:GNG as it absolutely fails the significant coverage clause. I quote from that policy: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention". Transcendence (talk) 20:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm sure you'd agree that this is significant coverage --- The paragraph in this New York Times article [7] is significant as well. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Added this New York Times reference to the article. Neptune's Trident (talk) 03:43, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Relies too much right now on primary sources, but hopefully people will fix that. The New Yorker, The New York Times, CNN, USA Today, and Newsweek, all seem like the best sources used, so far. Sagecandor (talk) 05:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lots of credible sources and this article will continue to improve over time.Cllgbksr (talk) 12:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to satisfy WP:GNG based on the New Yorker piece alone. That article appears to be highly reliable to me. The New Yorker has an strong reputation for accuracy and regularly publishes opinion-y articles that are still thoroughly fact checked. This appears to be an excellent example of that. (I'm not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as much as I wish it weren't the case. TimothyJosephWood 19:17, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having an in-depth biographical profile in a major news outlet, combined with other sources easily establish WP:GNG GuzzyG (talk) 09:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.