Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiernan Majerus-Collins

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 a snowball close as delete. This is only going one way.--Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:00, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kiernan Majerus-Collins

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Delete Simply does not pass the GNG or Politician guideline. Created by single-purpose user. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 22:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Sidenote, the commons photo accompanying this article was uploaded by a user named "Kiernanmc" -- who shares the subject's name. What are the odds this is the same user, or at least coordinated by the same user? Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 22:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - The odss are quite good, but the fact is irrelevant to the deletion discussion. BMK (talk) 00:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Agreed, simply thought it was a factor for editors to consider. Either way, Majerus-Collins is clearly simply a local LARP-er with no national or international significance as Wikipedia, I believe, requires. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 17:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 22:24, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 22:24, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOLITICIAN. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOLITICIAN. Pretty cut and dry. dimaspivak (talk) 22:44, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Annekeye (talk)

— Note to closing admin: Annekeye (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

Why? Remeber WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid reason. BMK (talk) 00:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! You are the creator of the article. It would have been better if you had said so. BMK (talk) 00:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If Wikipedia doesn't include information about who our local elected representatives are, no one will. Majerus-Collins represents about 2,300 constituents in West Hartford. For the sake of promoting democracy, Wikipedia should have an article about him, so that his constituents can know who he is. Besides, it is not like he's gotten no public notice—in the past few weeks alone, media outlets across New England have covered his protests of Trump. Simply put, there is no reason to delete the article, and several reasons to keep it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annekeye (talk • contribs) 20:03, 31 January 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

Annekeye, please read Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians to see Wikipedia's standard of notability for politicians that is sought for articles covering local politicians. This is not a personal attack on you and your article, it's that Wikipedia has notability standards. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:29, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, I read it. Majerus-Collins qualifies. "Local politicians whose office would not ordinarily be considered notable may still clear the bar if they have received national or international press coverage, beyond the scope of what would ordinarily be expected for their role." Without a doubt Majerus-Collins meets this criteria. His coverage in regional and national newspapers, TV, and radio far exceeds that of his colleagues on the West Hartford Democratic Town Committee.

Unfortunately for you, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Your references are to the Hartford Courant, the Yale Daily News, a local TV station, and the school paper of a small local college. You have not demonstrated in any way "national or international press coverage." For instance, Hartford is only about 2.5 hours from New York City, and there's no mention of Kiernan Majerus-Collins in the archives of The New York Times, and only a single mention -- via the Courant report -- in the Boston Globe, the other world-class newspaper that's nearby.
You have to face it, your subject made a tiny ripple in the mediasphere, but not enough of a splash to make him notable as far as Wikipedia is concerned.
Which leads me to another pertinent question: are you in any way connected to Kiernan Majerus-Collins, either personally or professionally? We have rules about editing with a conflict of interest, and about paid editing, both of which you are obligated to follow in order to edit here. Please familiarize yourself with them in case you do any future editing here. (Your current article is, I'm afraid, toast. The clear consensus of editors is that the subject is not notable, and as such it will be deleted within the next week.) BMK (talk) 05:29, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Hartford Courant is absolutely a national newspaper. It's America's oldest continually published daily newspaper. Annekeye (talk) 17:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Hartford Courant is 56th on the list of newspapers with the most circulation in the United States (see [1]), and, in any event, an item in a single newspaper does not qualify as "national and international coverage". BMK (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Hartford Courant is a major metropolitan daily with a well-deserved reputation for excellent, serious journalism and is absolutely eliegible to be counted as supporting notability. However, to actually pass WP:GNG would require more coverge in the Courant and other media than presently exists.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:22, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As E, M. Gregoiry says, it is undoubtedly true that the Courant is a quality newspaper, however, it is also the local newspaper for the event (see WP:BLP1E) described, which is why, Annekeye, it does not count when considering whether the subject has garnered "national and international" coverage. BMK (talk) 18:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Rachel Keye is a known alias of Kiernan Majerus-Collins. That is to say, the subject of the article pretended to be a constituent of his own district to write and then defend an article on himself. Rmckenney (talk) 16:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Who, then, are you, who created an ID simply to vote in this AfD and "out" Anna Keye? BMK (talk) 17:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what's being argued here. If WP:SOCK is being violated (as it appears to be), then this article should be speedily deleted, regardless of how editors stumbled upon this page. dimaspivak (talk) 18:33, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Appears to be a definite A7 from my eyes in its present state. Amortias (T)(C) 23:05, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Very minor local politician, fails all relevant notability requirements. BMK (talk) 00:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond My Ken, not true. Majerus-Collins qualifies. "Local politicians whose office would not ordinarily be considered notable may still clear the bar if they have received national or international press coverage, beyond the scope of what would ordinarily be expected for their role." Without a doubt Majerus-Collins meets this criteria. His coverage in regional and national newspapers, TV, and radio far exceeds that of his colleagues on the West Hartford Democratic Town Committee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annekeye (talk • contribs) 00:18, 1 February 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

See my comments above. Your interpretation of our standards is incorrect, as evidenced by the opinions of all these editors around you who disagree. Also, please "sign" your comments by adding four tildes (~~~~) at the end of the message. BMK (talk) 05:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the closer I look, the worse this gets. The subject is not even an elected official in West Hartford (see this), he's a member of the town's Democratic Committee, therefore he has no "constituency" per se. He's not even the chair of the district he's part of, just one of 8 members for that district. (There are 56 members of the Committee as a whole - see [2]). This person fails our notability requirements on so many levels there's really no reason for this to go the full 7 days. BMK (talk) 17:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article should probably be deleted...for now. Mr. Majerus-Collins is an "up and comer", as they say, so no doubt he will meet the requirements in the near future. I've just come to add my two cents about the underhanded actions of editors. Users dimaspivak and Rmckenney (and possibly Dcpoliticaljunkie) are blatant aggressors of the subject of this page. (Majerus-Collins leaves everything public on his Facebook page and you can see their constant spamming of his posts) I'm obviously very new to Wikipedia but if there is a way to flag them as "biased motives" or something of that ilk, that would be recommended. AfD pages are for discussion, and just saying things like "Pointless article" are not constructive at all. I realize I am slightly derailing the discussion myself, but I think it's important that editors not make decisions based on disliking the subject of the article. I would also like to add that in this case, the argument that "Your interpretation of our standards is incorrect, as evidenced by the opinions of all these editors around you who disagree." doesn't really hold water when many of the editors are against him for personal reasons. RobCanCan (talk)— RobCanCan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

RobCanCan, your wording seems to indicate a (very) close connection to the subject, the users above are correct. This seems like (yet another) alias of what appears to be the subject himself. Please refrain from doing such actions they go against Wikipedia's policies, as referenced here WP:SOCK, and WP:COI. Thanks. Xin Deui

RobCanCan is ia brand=spanking new user. BMK (talk) 23:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, I am a brand new user, but I don't know how you can ascertain from "my wording" that I am the subject. Citation needed, as they say, not just using misguided intuition. I am not Majerus-Collins, though I am from West Hartford and I see his actions on social media. Various people (including the users above) have been posting this article to social media for the explicit purpose of brigading to get it taken down. Once again, I think this article should be taken down, but on its lack of merits, not because these people think he is a bad person. That sounds like a CoI to me. Also, if you check the history, it's clear that various detractors of the subject have been vandalizing the article; underhanded and unprofessional editing all around. RobCanCan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, the repeated addition by anonymous IPs of unsourced claims of illegal or unethical activity is indeed a violation of our WP:BLP rules; a claim like that has to be sourced very carefully because of its sensitivity. Accordingly, I've applied semi-protection to the article, so that anonymous or newly-registered editors cannot edit it anymore. Established users will still be able to, however. Bearcat (talk) 17:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A definite A7. Xin Deui (T)
Delete per others points - I can't add anything new. Legacypac (talk) 04:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOLITICIAN. Pointless article. Rmckenney (talk) 22:59, 31 January 2016 (UTC)— Rmckenney (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. No notability per WP:NPOL, and no substantive reliable source coverage. And as the person who wrote the "how a local politician might occasionally still get over the bar" clarification that the creator is citing above, let me assure them of this: that criterion is not meant to cover off local political figures whose coverage is limited to their local newspaper — if he were getting coverage in The New York Times or The Washington Post or The Los Angeles Times or The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, then that criterion would come into play. Attaching a claim of national significance to a hometown paper which is covering him in a local context is not how you satisfy that criterion — the places where the coverage is coming from have to nationalize to get a person into Wikipedia on that basis. If the coverage is coming exclusively from local media, however, then making claims that the local media outlet in question has national prominence is not enough — for example, The New York Times has far more national prominence than the Hartford Courant does, but even it still can't singlehandedly carry the notability of a local political activist in New York City. If that person doesn't pass WP:NPOL on the basis of their position, and hasn't expanded outward to also garner coverage in Washington or Seattle or Chicago or San Francisco, then the mere fact that the local coverage happens to be in The New York Times rather than the Podunk Pennysaver does not augment their notability in and of itself. Bearcat (talk)
Delete, WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Not notable in the slightest, and I'll echo everyone else saying WP:TOOSOON. "He gained attention by attending a Trump rally" - seriously? sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 17:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as, despite current coverage, there's nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 02:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete probably should have been speedied - looks like classic A7 to me. Otherwise it fails WP:NPOL and the WP:GNG. The "references" only prove he is indeed on the Democratic Town Committee but do nothing toward establishing his having done anything WP notable.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 06:35, 7 February 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.