- 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. Vanamonde ( talk) 17:44, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Rory McShane
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Rory McShane ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:AUTOBIO of a political strategist, not properly referenced as passing WP:GNG. The references here do not constitute reliable source coverage about him -- right across the board, they constitute glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other people. As always, our notability standards are not passed just because newspaper articles can be found in which the subject's name gets mentioned -- Rory McShane has to be the subject of a source, not just a giver of soundbite in a source about somebody else, before that source actually supports his notability at all. And even if he could be properly sourced as passing our notability criteria, our conflict of interest rules would still preclude him from starting the article himself. Bearcat ( talk) 17:43, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 23:27, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 23:27, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 23:27, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 23:29, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
KEEP Bearcat, How do you know it is a WP:AUTOBIO? WP:GNG clearly states " Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Several of these articles are not trivial and are based entirely on interviews with him< https://www.(b)reitbart.com/politics/2017/06/26/how-corey-stewart-went-full-troll-and-stunned-virginia-politics Breitbart is blocked for some reason so you have to change the (b) to a b
but also...
[1] -- Johnston49er ( talk) 19:21, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Furthermore, Rory McShane lead counter protests to the Westboro Baptist Church when they protested in Washington DC [2] he is a consistently published author in the political consulting industry's leading publication [3] Johnston49er ( talk) 19:29, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
References
- Firstly, I know it's an AUTOBIO because the creator's username is Rkmcshane — and besides this, the only other contributions Rkmcshane has ever made to Wikipedia at all have been to articles about people who are directly named in this article as clients of McShane's, which pretty much eliminates the slim possibility that Rkmcshane is just a person who coincidentally happens to have the same surname and initials as the article subject. Secondly, interviews in which a person is talking about himself are not notability-makers — a source has to represent third party coverage about him written in the third person, not a Q&A interview in which he's speaking about himself or something else, to support his notability. And while a person does not have to be the sole topic of the source material, he does still have to be more than just glancingly namechecked a single time in an article whose actual topic is somebody else entirely — we're looking for coverage about him, which is not the same thing as coverage about other people that just mentions his name in the process. Thirdly, Breitbart is not a reliable or notability-assisting source at all — and neither is Generation Progress, which is an organizational blog, not a media outlet. Fourthly, people do not get over our notability criteria by being the published author of content about other things, as verified by their own
primary source directories of their own content — people get over our notability criteria by being the subject of reliable source content written by other people.
Bearcat (
talk) 20:11, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- That might be evidence but it's not necessarily proof. For example I could claim that because you are homosexual Canadian you have a vested interested in reducing the standing of a conservative political consultant. I do not, however, much like you, do not have proof of this so to submit that as a statement of fact seems very presumptive. It could be a big fan of
Rory McShane who edited it. You keep saying McShane McShane McShane it could be
China It could be anyone, it also be someone sitting on their bed that weights 400 pounds. It could be anyone. But also you are practicing
WP:REPEAT on saying it has to be coverage about him even though the
WIKIPEDIA:GNG you cited says that is unecessary --
Johnston49er (
talk) 00:39, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
- GNG most certainly does not say that coverage about him is unnecessary — it says exactly the opposite of that, in fact. Coverage about him is exactly what GNG is measuring, so by definition a person can't pass GNG if he doesn't have the type of coverage that GNG requires. And incidentally, you can trust me on this: in my 15+ years of being a contributor to Wikipedia, I have never once edited with so much as one iota of political bias for or against any political party on ideological grounds.
Bearcat (
talk) 13:42, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
- Just before you started this deletion you said this "00:08, 2 January 2019 diff hist -1,885 Rocco Rossi nobody gives half a shit what he tweeted on the stupid worthless platform of nothingness that is Twitter; wrapping citation needed in reference tags is not how you call attention to lack of referencing." Seems like at least an iota of bias. Here you are cussing out a center-right politician associated with the PCPO. Seems like your bias might be centered around
Rory McShane's regular contributions to the
Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario --
Johnston49er (
talk) 17:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
- Nope. I have no bias for or against Rossi whatsoever — kindly note that what I cussed out was Twitter, not Rossi. What people say on Twitter is not encyclopedic content — not because it's Rossi, but because it's Twitter (an inherently unreliable source on which people of all political persuasions say silly stuff of no meaningful consequence or enduring significance all the time). And if you think I have a bias against Rossi, you might want to peruse its full edit history to see how much I've contributed to the article in the past. My agenda on here centres around reliable sourcing, not pushing my political opinions. And didja also notice, perhaps, that the Twitter-sourced crap I removed was partisan criticism of Rossi, not pro-Rossi stuff? Kinda inherently disembowels the notion that I'm biased against Rossi, dunnit? Bearcat ( talk) 18:28, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
- Just before you started this deletion you said this "00:08, 2 January 2019 diff hist -1,885 Rocco Rossi nobody gives half a shit what he tweeted on the stupid worthless platform of nothingness that is Twitter; wrapping citation needed in reference tags is not how you call attention to lack of referencing." Seems like at least an iota of bias. Here you are cussing out a center-right politician associated with the PCPO. Seems like your bias might be centered around
Rory McShane's regular contributions to the
Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario --
Johnston49er (
talk) 17:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
- GNG most certainly does not say that coverage about him is unnecessary — it says exactly the opposite of that, in fact. Coverage about him is exactly what GNG is measuring, so by definition a person can't pass GNG if he doesn't have the type of coverage that GNG requires. And incidentally, you can trust me on this: in my 15+ years of being a contributor to Wikipedia, I have never once edited with so much as one iota of political bias for or against any political party on ideological grounds.
Bearcat (
talk) 13:42, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
- That might be evidence but it's not necessarily proof. For example I could claim that because you are homosexual Canadian you have a vested interested in reducing the standing of a conservative political consultant. I do not, however, much like you, do not have proof of this so to submit that as a statement of fact seems very presumptive. It could be a big fan of
Rory McShane who edited it. You keep saying McShane McShane McShane it could be
China It could be anyone, it also be someone sitting on their bed that weights 400 pounds. It could be anyone. But also you are practicing
WP:REPEAT on saying it has to be coverage about him even though the
WIKIPEDIA:GNG you cited says that is unecessary --
Johnston49er (
talk) 00:39, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
- Firstly, I know it's an AUTOBIO because the creator's username is Rkmcshane — and besides this, the only other contributions Rkmcshane has ever made to Wikipedia at all have been to articles about people who are directly named in this article as clients of McShane's, which pretty much eliminates the slim possibility that Rkmcshane is just a person who coincidentally happens to have the same surname and initials as the article subject. Secondly, interviews in which a person is talking about himself are not notability-makers — a source has to represent third party coverage about him written in the third person, not a Q&A interview in which he's speaking about himself or something else, to support his notability. And while a person does not have to be the sole topic of the source material, he does still have to be more than just glancingly namechecked a single time in an article whose actual topic is somebody else entirely — we're looking for coverage about him, which is not the same thing as coverage about other people that just mentions his name in the process. Thirdly, Breitbart is not a reliable or notability-assisting source at all — and neither is Generation Progress, which is an organizational blog, not a media outlet. Fourthly, people do not get over our notability criteria by being the published author of content about other things, as verified by their own
primary source directories of their own content — people get over our notability criteria by being the subject of reliable source content written by other people.
Bearcat (
talk) 20:11, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per Bearcat. SportingFlyer talk 23:43, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
-
WP:PERNOM is to be avoided
SportingFlyer --
Johnston49er (
talk) 00:11, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
- Per that link "If the rationale provided in the nomination includes a comprehensive argument, specific policy references and/or a compelling presentation of evidence in favour of keeping or deletion, an endorsement of the nominator's argument may be sufficient." I've done this before with Bearcat, a user who frequently writes good AfD nominations, since I have nothing else to add, but if you want me to throw in a clear autobio/fails
WP:GNG, I'm happy to do so.
SportingFlyer
talk 00:26, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
- But then that would be WP:REPEAT-- Johnston49er ( talk) 01:11, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
- Per that link "If the rationale provided in the nomination includes a comprehensive argument, specific policy references and/or a compelling presentation of evidence in favour of keeping or deletion, an endorsement of the nominator's argument may be sufficient." I've done this before with Bearcat, a user who frequently writes good AfD nominations, since I have nothing else to add, but if you want me to throw in a clear autobio/fails
WP:GNG, I'm happy to do so.
SportingFlyer
talk 00:26, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
-
WP:PERNOM is to be avoided
SportingFlyer --
Johnston49er (
talk) 00:11, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
KEEP I think the man is relevant to modern GOP politics. He's received a ton of media coverage and has had major clients. Perhaps the article should be edited to be more neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamuelLeDoux ( talk • contribs) 02:09, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. as promotionalism . I'm going to disclose one of my tricks, any bio that has "achieving the rank of Eagle Scout." is either pure PR or totally naive. that's for beginner's job applications when they have nothing else to say, it's not encyclopedic notability. to confirm the promotionalism , It has a photo caption "international media has also relied on McShane's insight and analysis." which is thorougly promotional content as for the rest of the article, it tells about the notable politicians & causes he " helped " to one degree or another, and the interviews he gave--just as his job requires. DGG ( talk ) 03:04, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
- Interesting given Jeff Roe the singlest most notable Republican Strategist in politics today has that in his article too. -- Johnston49er ( talk) 03:20, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
- Delete as WP:PROMO. Beyond the promo issue, passing mentions and quotes in available sources do not rise to the level of significant coverage required by the WP:GNG. Additionally, Bearcat is almost certainly correct about the COI issue, based on behavioral evidence. Bakazaka ( talk) 05:26, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - Lacks the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq ( talk) 05:39, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Keep Per Johnston49er also article has been up for well over a year Bearcat is clearly retaliating because of sour grapes over Chris Fails -- OmegaDeltaAlpha ( talk) 06:34, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
- — OmegaDeltaAlpha ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Note that the SPA template on OmegaDeltaAlpha, whose first edit upon joining Wikipedia was to post a keep vote to an AfD discussion already involving COI issues, was removed by
Johnston49er.
Bakazaka (
talk) 07:05, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
- I've restored it, just for the record. Johnston49er isn't who gets to decide whether it's "relevant" or not that a user's first-ever Wikipedia edit was to an AFD discussion — that has to be stated on the record regardless of how anybody feels about it, because it's the discussion closer who gets to decide whether it's "relevant" or not. Bearcat ( talk) 13:39, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
- Why would I have "sour grapes" over Chris Fails? I wasn't the nominator of that article, and it's not on track to get kept — so what is there for me to "retaliate" about, exactly? Bearcat ( talk) 13:39, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Keep I wholeheartedly endorse Johnston49er's arguments -- 98.168.227.238 ( talk) 07:02, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
- — 98.168.227.238 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete Massive COI issues here, it doesn't seem like any of the sources cited are about McShane, but passing mentions. Given the issues here, could perhaps be a WP:G11. Bkissin ( talk) 19:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
- Delete the article subject seems to not be notable, especially considering that notability is not inherited from other, more notable topics. There is also a seeming lack of coverage that is actually about McShane, which is required for even a base passing of WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Futhermore, the SPA and COI activities (though not explicit reasons for deletion) surrounding this AfD should be noted by the closing admin.-- SamHolt6 ( talk) 13:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- Delete There isn't really any coverage about McShane himself. Appears to be a WP:G11, not to mention the COI issues at hand. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 13:46, 4 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.