Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barclay McGain

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. The article is about an Australian local politician and columnist who is apparently somewhat regularly in the news in Australia for provocative or controversial acts or statements. There are reasonable arguments on both sides: WP:NOTNEWS on the one hand, and WP:GNG on the other hand on account of the repeated media coverage of his antics. As such, I can't discern a rough consensus here either on the basis of numbers or strength of argument. Sandstein 08:48, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Barclay McGain

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Barclay McGain (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)

WP:BLP1E, received some brief media attention but no significant coverage Ivar the Boneful (talk) 02:32, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:05, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
• Delete I've already been discussing this at length with the creator of the article on the talk page when I first nominated the page for deletion. -- Tytrox (talk) 03:42, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
• Keep I and the initial reviewer of the page already have said the subject has made headlines in different occasions for different topics, which makes this article ineligible for Wikipedia:BLP1E (since popular for one event seemed to be the concern). Tame (talk) 07:00, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
• Keep unfortunately. There are multiple events, so single event does not apply. While not much bio depth, there is reasonable, reliably sourced, depth about the subject's activities, and is sustained over more than a year. So notable, even if for not the best reasons. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not grounds for deletion. Aoziwe (talk) 11:41, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
• Keep I stick to my original comment. While the most coverage is indeed about the video, there is clearly more than just that. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 12:00, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
• Keep agree with the above, both videos and McGain himself have been widely covered by the media and publicly commented on by politicians and celebrities.Rybkovich (talk) 05:13, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
• Delete it seems a low bar for significance for McGain the individual. I feel the schoolies video would be best represented as a 'Controversy' on the Young LNP page.--Houmanumi (talk) 05:56, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
• Keep Unfortunately, the subject has made headlines in multiple occasions spanning over 2 years regarding various incidents, hence its fo-shizz not a case of Wikipedia:BLP1E. 103.126.20.210 (talk) 11:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)— 103.126.20.210 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete While the subject has been the topic of couple of articles and controversy, the subject himself is not of significance to warrant an article. Much of the content appears to be self promotional.--froomey999 (talk) 18:36, 7 December 2021 (UTC)— froomey999 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  @Froomey999, as @Aoziwe stated earlier: "WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not grounds for deletion" Tame (talk) 19:28, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• Keep per above. This passes WP:GNG Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 19:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. At a stretch this passes WP:GNG, however this definitely of very low significance. If it is to be kept then the trivial information needs to be excluded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.200.6.25 (talk) 00:53, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't call this "low significance". There were multiple high profile incidents here, this is very clearly a pattern of behavior and it is fine to be on wikipedia for that purpose. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 03:24, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
• FEI The subject has recently made headlines again regarding Halloween costume and is making more for whatever he does. Even if you discard all the previous different incidents and citations, even with the newer headlines, WP:BLP1E surely surely is ineligible. -- Tame (talk) 06:41, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. This is wholly unnotable. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, that an event an individual has been involved in has been reported in the press is not evidence in of itself that either the event is notable or the individual is notable. Notability within this discussion seems to be predicated on a minor news story that is intermittently re-reported on. Barclay is not even the only student from this specific University that is intermittently flagged by the media for being controversial, nor is he the most prominent within the Liberal-National Party at the University. Other individuals include a former Young National Party Vice-President that claimed he would have been a nazi, and a former president of the UQ chapter who led the transgender protest discussed in Barclays article and then committed suicide after receiving abuse immediately after. Barclay is less prominent within his former political party than those individuals were. Outrage about conservative students behaving like conservatives is entirely unnotable, and too widespread a reported phenomenon to be considered uniquely notable for this individual. Importantly some of the events discussed in Barclay's article are merely unnotable events he attended, and news coverage does not mention his involvement. They cannot be used to avoid Wikipedia:BLP1E. Notability on the articles talk page seems to be predicated on the false assertion that he is a politician, or head of a local political party, neither of which are true. Finally Barclay himself has publically commented that he paid for this article to be written about himself , which calls into question the motivations of the original editor. TheDownUnderEditor (talk) 23:10, 12 December 2021 (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.