- 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. as a WP:BLP1E. RL0919 ( talk) 14:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Nick Fuentes
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Nick Fuentes ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete (as proposer) - Page's content isn't any indicative of the subject's notability. We don't give random white supremacist YouTubers a platform here. If merging to a larger related article isn't viable, this article should be deleted. Ewen Douglas ( talk) 03:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - Reads entirely like an advertisement for this teenage clown's video of hatred. Fails WP:GNG as sources have no significant coverage on major events the subject has participated, only passing and recentist references. Some random alt-right figure deserves no "documentations" of them here anyway, we're not a platform for hatred. Tsumikiria ( T/ C) 04:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 06:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 06:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 06:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 06:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- Delete: it's a close one. I consider the self-published sources in no way indicative of notability. However, the coverage in Time, The New York Times and the Chicago Tribune is independent and reliable. However, I am erring on the side of caution because:
- The majority of major media coverage both cited by the article and revealed by my own source searches refers not to Fuentes as an individual but as part of a collective group of far-right youths who attended the Unite the Right rally.
- The only major, reliable coverage he's received is in the aftermath of the Unite the Right rally and there appears to have been no sustained coverage since. This leads me to believe that he fails BLP1E.
- Large portions of the article are supported by self-published or questionable sources.
- The article, in its current form, is rather promotional.
- Edit: while I wholeheartedly agree with Tsumikiria's sentiments, I would be remiss if I didn't point out that people who spread hatred can, and in some cases, are notable because they have received sustained coverage, such as Richard Spencer. It doesn't mean we have to like what they say.
- TL;DR: delete per
WP:BLP1E.
SITH
(talk) 16:58, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- Perhaps I should have wrote longer to clarify. I agree with what you said. What I meant was that such random alt right clowns don't deserve a place here. Our responsibility was to document high profile ones so that the public can read about them here. Tsumikiria ( T/ C) 02:14, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
"Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Don't think he's notable enough. Skirts89 ( talk) 22:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:GNG. PeterTheFourth ( talk) 16:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Clearly passes WP:GNG with coverage in multiple media sources including TIME, MMfA, and the Boston Globe. BLP1E has been overcome due to lasting coverage of his Charlotsville rally participation, youtube channel, and death threats at his college. He's a white supremacist, but we're WP:NOTCENSORED. First two delete !votes are making political judgements, not policy based arguments. Other delete !voters argue over content (eg. "notability not explained in article", "reads as promotional", etc). Tsumikiria's argument that "alt right clowns don't deserve a place here" is not a policy based argument. We cover all notable topics, not just the ones we like. The article needs to be improved; not deleted.--v/r - T P 03:07, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- comment: I'm not so sure about "clearly"; the three sources you mention all covered Fuentes within the span of one week, so that's not sustained coverage. WP:SUSTAINED clearly states that if "reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event... we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." There's no lasting coverage of him after that, only brief mentions. Ewen Douglas ( talk) 13:34, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Clearly passes WP:GNG with coverage in multiple media sources including TIME, MMfA, and the Boston Globe. Streams to thousands each day and makes millions of impressions on twitter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.240.163.116 ( talk) 18:26, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- note: this is this IP address's only edit, and it copy-pastes the first sentence of the first Keep vote. Ewen Douglas ( talk) 20:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Passes WP:GNG and I'm not sure about the WP:SUSTAINED issues--as he's had more recent coverage as well, here and here among others. The fact that he has some despicable views on race doesn't really matter as long as he's notable and such. ModerateMike729 ( talk) 19:11, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- comment: One of those new sources is a local newspaper, and the other is an editorial written about the author's personal experience with Fuentes during his college days. Not what I would call passing
WP:GNG level if that's all there is.
Ewen Douglas (
talk) 20:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- comment:' None of them are top tier RS, but there's certainly more:
here, and
here. Admittedly, those are not independent of the subject, but
this is. Close call but I think he's past GNG.
ModerateMike729 (
talk) 20:29, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- "None of them are top tier RS" - that's precisely the problem with this article. (Your 3rd link literally has 1 sentence on Fuentes in the entire article). The only RS that feature him are from one week in history, and there's only 3 of those (one of those 3 is actually a blog on MMfA, so not even that great). The rest of the mentions are all from very fringe sources. That's why he doesn't meet GnG. Ewen Douglas ( talk) 21:40, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- comment:' None of them are top tier RS, but there's certainly more:
here, and
here. Admittedly, those are not independent of the subject, but
this is. Close call but I think he's past GNG.
ModerateMike729 (
talk) 20:29, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- comment: One of those new sources is a local newspaper, and the other is an editorial written about the author's personal experience with Fuentes during his college days. Not what I would call passing
WP:GNG level if that's all there is.
Ewen Douglas (
talk) 20:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- Delete as per Ewen Douglas and StraussInTheHouse. Fails to meet the requirements for significant and sustained coverage of this particular individual. Bondegezou ( talk) 16:06, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- Keep, asserts notability with reliable sources.
Amisom (
talk) 19:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- comment The reliable sources only cover him for one week, years ago, so no, there's no "notability with reliable sources"
Ewen Douglas (
talk) 19:44, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- @
Ewen Douglas: But I fairly obviously disagree, otherwise I wouldn't have said what I said. My understanding of
WP:N is that the sources in the article as it stands are a legitimate assertion of notability. You're entitled to think that they're not. I disagree. Deal with it.
Amisom (
talk) 10:14, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- I suppose one of us agrees with actual Wikipedia guidelines and the other disagrees with them, then. I would wager the person disagreeing would have the more difficult time "dealing with it."
Ewen Douglas (
talk) 13:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- May I suggest you reread
Wikipedia:Consensus? I'm sure you think you're unquestionably right and that everyone else's view is wrong, biased, incorrect, against policy, foolish and idiotic. But Wikipedia tends to work on the basis of discussions, and two editors can disagree without either of them being 'wrong'. Let me also inform you that I, and I suspect most of the other people commenting here, will be able to cope without further hectoring from you. Allow this AfD to run its course. If the consensus goes in your favour, good for you. If it goes against you, tough. Sniping at people who disagree with you will not help your cause.
Amisom (
talk) 13:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- I don't believe pointing out basic errors in stating Wikipedia policies qualifies as "sniping"; however, most of the statements you made above assume a great deal of things, both about me and other editors, so I would advise you to take your own advice about hectoring and sniping.
Ewen Douglas (
talk) 23:53, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- @
Ewen Douglas: I didn't make a "basic error". I expressed my opinion. You might disagree. You might interpret the policy differently. That's fine. Doesn't mean I'm wrong - and I'm far from the only person who seems to have reached my conclusion here.
If you need help understanding the difference between facts (which are right/ wrong and therefore might be erroneous) and opinions (which are neither right or wrong) then there are some resources here that might help you [1] Amisom ( talk) 18:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- @
Ewen Douglas: I didn't make a "basic error". I expressed my opinion. You might disagree. You might interpret the policy differently. That's fine. Doesn't mean I'm wrong - and I'm far from the only person who seems to have reached my conclusion here.
- I don't believe pointing out basic errors in stating Wikipedia policies qualifies as "sniping"; however, most of the statements you made above assume a great deal of things, both about me and other editors, so I would advise you to take your own advice about hectoring and sniping.
Ewen Douglas (
talk) 23:53, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- May I suggest you reread
Wikipedia:Consensus? I'm sure you think you're unquestionably right and that everyone else's view is wrong, biased, incorrect, against policy, foolish and idiotic. But Wikipedia tends to work on the basis of discussions, and two editors can disagree without either of them being 'wrong'. Let me also inform you that I, and I suspect most of the other people commenting here, will be able to cope without further hectoring from you. Allow this AfD to run its course. If the consensus goes in your favour, good for you. If it goes against you, tough. Sniping at people who disagree with you will not help your cause.
Amisom (
talk) 13:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- I suppose one of us agrees with actual Wikipedia guidelines and the other disagrees with them, then. I would wager the person disagreeing would have the more difficult time "dealing with it."
Ewen Douglas (
talk) 13:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- @
Ewen Douglas: But I fairly obviously disagree, otherwise I wouldn't have said what I said. My understanding of
WP:N is that the sources in the article as it stands are a legitimate assertion of notability. You're entitled to think that they're not. I disagree. Deal with it.
Amisom (
talk) 10:14, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- comment The reliable sources only cover him for one week, years ago, so no, there's no "notability with reliable sources"
Ewen Douglas (
talk) 19:44, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- Delete: WP:TOOSOON per review of available sources which are in passing and/or blog-like. Not sufficient for a BLP at this time. K.e.coffman ( talk) 20:17, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To further discuss the depth and quality of coverage. Even discounting the IP, we have a majority but not quite a consensus for deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:58, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Relisting comment: To further discuss the depth and quality of coverage. Even discounting the IP, we have a majority but not quite a consensus for deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:58, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- Keep - All politics aside, I see a number of reliable sources on this article: Boston Globe, Reuters, NYT, Chicago Tribune, Mic, etc etc. Not sure I want to call Vice a reliable source, but that's here too. Seems to pass the minimum requirements for notability at the very least. Cosmic Sans ( talk) 16:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. If we take the WP:BLP1E coverage aside, there is a couple of articles in student newspapers and a single Boston Globe article. Does not pass GNG. wumbolo ^^^ 21:52, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- Comment The quote "We don't give random white supremacist YouTubers a platform here" by Ewen Douglas raised my eyebrow. None of us own Wikipedia. Doesn't matter if Fuentes is a despicable person or a good person, he either meets the WP:BLP standard or he doesn't. Cllgbksr ( talk) 04:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- It's a fair point, Cllgbksr, and perhaps that part should have been left out. I apologize, as I believe this is only my second deletion nomination, so I'm not well-practised at it. For the record, I know there are more white supremacists on Wikipedia who are definitely notable, and I nominated this one solely based on his lack of significant coverage over a long period of time. Ewen Douglas ( talk) 13:55, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- I do have the feeling that opposition to this article is largely coming from a place of dislike for the subject rather than Wikipedia guidelines.
Cosmic Sans (
talk) 18:48, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- See my comment above. That's not the case, at least for me. Ewen Douglas ( talk) 14:32, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable per SITH's reasoning. -- Lockley ( talk) 20:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- Delete This appears to be a case of WP:BLP1E. if you take away his coverage from his involvement in Charlottesville, his other coverage doesn't meet the standards of WP:GNG. GPL93 ( talk) 14:50, 17 January 2019 (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.