Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aidan Kohn-Murphy
- 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 no consensus. Sandstein 09:27, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Aidan Kohn-Murphy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No WP:SIGCOV. I don't think this topic meets WP:GNG because all the listed sources are purely focusing on Gen-Z for Change and not its founder. — Tulsi 24x7 05:56, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Tulsi 24x7 05:56, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep: Hi Tulsi. Although most of the sources in the article focus on Gen-Z for Change, many of them include significant coverage of its founder, and two ("Inside the Progressive Movement’s TikTok Army" and "How a Georgetown Day grad's political savvy has made him a TikTok star") are essentially biographies (the latter explicitly, and the the Politico article refers to Kohn-Murphy by name 25 times). I would not have created the article were I not certain that Kohn-Murphy meets the notability criteria, and I believe you will see that this is the case if you read the sources. --CanadianJudoka (talk) 06:09, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per CanadianJudoka Andre🚐 22:41, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:31, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:39, 21 August 2022 (UTC)- Merge - I think merging the article into Gen-Z for Change and Georgetown day school would be a good idea as Tulsi mentioned how that is what most of the sources talk about, although i disagree with deleting the content altogether. I think a redirect from Aidan Kohn-Murphy to Gen-Z for Change would fit well if the article was merged.
- 𝙨𝙥𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙧-𝙬𝙞𝙣𝙚-𝙗𝙤𝙩𝙩𝙡𝙚(🕷) - (✉) 12:16, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
- If a subject is a main topic of multiple secondary sources and is relevant to more than one Wikipedia article, isn't that a good indication that it warrants an article of its own? I don't have any stake in this and it's a genuine question. I decided to create the Gen-Z for Change article when I read about the organisation in the news and saw that Wikipedia didn't have an article. In the course of researching that article, it was clear that the founder was notable beyond just that function, so I created an article about him as well. Many other people associated with Gen-Z for Change warrant an article as well. Olivia Julianna, another Gen-Z for Change staff member, is an example, but one of the organisation's purposes is to coordinate notable people for political advocacy, so it could be that dozens or more of its members should also have their own articles, regardless of that membership. CanadianJudoka (talk) 16:18, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
- Mainly because the article doesn't actually contain a lot of information about something other than Gen-Z for Change. I think the few sentences in the articles that aren't about Gen-Z for Change could be added to Gen-Z for Change for more background about the founder, and then the Georgetown Day school stuff could be added to that article 𝙨𝙥𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙧-𝙬𝙞𝙣𝙚-𝙗𝙤𝙩𝙩𝙡𝙚(🕷) - (✉) 19:03, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
- Sure, but that's because the article needs to be expanded. The presence or absence of information in an article is not a measure of notability. Also, what made you change your mind about this article? I see that you submitted a draft version of it in July, about ten days before I created this one. CanadianJudoka (talk) 20:56, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
- There wasn't a standalone article about Gen-Z for Change when i created the draft article about Aidan Kohn-Murphy, although now there is 𝙨𝙥𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙧-𝙬𝙞𝙣𝙚-𝙗𝙤𝙩𝙩𝙡𝙚(🕷) - (✉) 19:11, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
- Sure, but that's because the article needs to be expanded. The presence or absence of information in an article is not a measure of notability. Also, what made you change your mind about this article? I see that you submitted a draft version of it in July, about ten days before I created this one. CanadianJudoka (talk) 20:56, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
- Mainly because the article doesn't actually contain a lot of information about something other than Gen-Z for Change. I think the few sentences in the articles that aren't about Gen-Z for Change could be added to Gen-Z for Change for more background about the founder, and then the Georgetown Day school stuff could be added to that article 𝙨𝙥𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙧-𝙬𝙞𝙣𝙚-𝙗𝙤𝙩𝙩𝙡𝙚(🕷) - (✉) 19:03, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
- If a subject is a main topic of multiple secondary sources and is relevant to more than one Wikipedia article, isn't that a good indication that it warrants an article of its own? I don't have any stake in this and it's a genuine question. I decided to create the Gen-Z for Change article when I read about the organisation in the news and saw that Wikipedia didn't have an article. In the course of researching that article, it was clear that the founder was notable beyond just that function, so I created an article about him as well. Many other people associated with Gen-Z for Change warrant an article as well. Olivia Julianna, another Gen-Z for Change staff member, is an example, but one of the organisation's purposes is to coordinate notable people for political advocacy, so it could be that dozens or more of its members should also have their own articles, regardless of that membership. CanadianJudoka (talk) 16:18, 21 August 2022 (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.