Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Caleb_Maupin_(2nd_nomination) References

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. The only sound policy-based arguments here are those from editors arguing for deletion. It's very obvious that some form of off-wiki canvassing has taken place here, and that sock/meat-puppetry is occurring. Thankfully these closes are made based on policy arguments, not volume. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:48, 9 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Caleb Maupin

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

Nominating on behalf of User:ZinedineZidane98. My action here is only to provide technical assistance completing the nomination; I am neutral. Original (but mis-placed) rationale was, Article subject is still not mentioned as notable in a single reliable source. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC) reply

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 Lacks RS with which to establish notability. Sources in article do not treat subject in depth. -- Dlohcierekim ( talk) 23:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 23:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 23:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 23:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment: Pinging the three active participants of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caleb Maupin: Justlettersandnumbers ( talk · contribs), C.J. Griffin ( talk · contribs), and Pburka ( talk · contribs).
Cunard ( talk) 07:48, 3 January 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep Sources CNN, Reuters and The Nation are all independent and reliable. Notability criteria for a journalist easily met by his position at RT, which is certainly above and beyond "a notable regional newspaper" or "notable internet magazine"[ [1]] Joseph dejacque ( talk) 18:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete. the references are either minor PR, or his own work DGG ( talk ) 17:58, 3 January 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete the sources currently in the article are either not significant or not independent. A COI source linked to RT recently asked for retention citing a slew of articles that mentioned Maupin in passing or not at all. If Maupin's apparent employers can't find significant coverage, it probably is not there to be found. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:45, 3 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment - Interesting. Other RT reporters have pages... Lindsay France, Ed Shultz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.135.167 ( talk) 14:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep - https://www.clevescene.com/cleveland/the-commies-next-door/Content?oid=1958161 Eggishornn is bluffing. Every single one of those pieces mentions Maupin. A few of the articles listed do feature Maupin significantly. The Cleveland Scene piece is biographical. The Atlantic Wire article focuses entirely on comments he made. Maupin's presence on the ship to Yemen was part of an international incident. — 2604:2000:7140:3400:D0D8:F217:144B:CF42 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 02:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC) (UTC). reply
Keep - Maupin is a noted journalist among alternative media. Many less significant journalists have pages of their own. The page is being manipulated with the purpose of slandering Maupin and by proxy alternative media. User:ZinedineZidane98 should be removed as he has demonstrated a personal motive to his editing. — StefanHolden ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 03:00, January 4, 2018 (UTC) (UTC).

Keep - Maupin is a respectable and professional journalist. Deleting his Wiki would erase his contributions and do a disservice to youth interested in alternative politics. This is clearly politically motivated — 100.12.24.173 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 03:43, January 4, 2018 (UTC) (UTC).
keep Caleb Maupin is a well-known journalist with a lot of experience. he is respected around the world and has made multiple contributions to the world of journalism as well as politics his sources are valid and can be backed up through multiple media sources. removing this article would be an insult to journalism and media as a whole. — 108.30.120.40 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 03:54, January 4, 2018 (UTC) (UTC).
Keep — Yuri8674 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 04:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC) (UTC). reply
Keep — 12.219.195.2 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 04:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC) (UTC). reply
Keep - Caleb Maupin has interacted with president trump before by asking him a question relating to relations with Russia: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmQtvk5elYc this proves his notability. — Jackalantern94 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 04:43, 4 January 2018 (UTC) (UTC). reply
Keep - Caleb Maupin is a very well known journalist that interacts with many notable figures. He has traveled to many countries to report first-hand many situations. In accordance with free speech, it would be a shame for such a well known and notable journalist to be silenced by removing this page. It is my opinion that this page should be kept, and even promoted in the interest of keeping true journalism alive.
Keep - Caleb Maupin is a well-known and prolific journalist with a robust online following comparable to other journalists with Wikipedia articles. He is also one of the most well-known figures in the American left currently. Thus, I see no reason why he does not meet the notability guidelines of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.79.235.169 ( talk) 09:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment - Wow. Hehe. See what I'm up against here? ZinedineZidane98 ( talk) 09:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Yes, it felt the same for me just before Christmas when I was walking through town and came across a flash mob of Santa Clauses racing the other way. Thincat ( talk) 10:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment- Why does ZinedineZidane98 continue to actively misrepresent the truth throughout this process? For months he has been working to get this page removed for obvious political reasons. He went as far misrepresenting Maupin's 2013 CNN interview on the talk page. He has also continually been removing references to Maupin's debate with Augustus Sol Invictus which was promoted by Julian Assange. https://twitter.com/julianassange/status/899139189060632576?lang=en Why? /info/en/?search=Talk:Caleb_Maupin#ZinedineZidane98_has_a_political_agenda_-_He_should_be_blocked_from_this_page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:7140:3400:61F9:8443:A37E:FE0A ( talk) 13:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete. I nominated this for deletion three years ago for lack of notability. At that time, Pburka mentioned the Cleveland Scene article as "significant coverage in a reliable source". It is that; it is also a local newspaper report of a local event, and clearly describes Maupin as one of two leaders of a group with fewer than ten members. The article was kept.

I don't see that anything has changed since then, that any truly substantial and independent national or international coverage has been added to the very tenuous list of references. He has four books listed on Google, all published by CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 11:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment - How about the fact that he is now writing regular columns for China.org.cn? http://www.china.org.cn/opinion/2017-10/18/content_41752768.htm, http://www.china.org.cn/opinion/2017-12/16/content_50105823.htm, http://www.china.org.cn/opinion/2017-09/24/content_41630454.htm. How about the fact that he was a speaker at the World Festival of Youth and Students in Sochi https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrpoS7BWgNc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:7140:3400:61F9:8443:A37E:FE0A ( talk) 13:13, 4 January 2018 (UTC) reply
Comment There is obviously either canvassing or socking going on here, likely both. The one article offered above that qualifies as a reliable source is a local newsweekly (and a minor one, at that) talking about Maupin in the context of being one of two leaders of a 10-person group from nearly a decade ago. That is not a significant piece of journalism about Maupin. Absolutely everything that contains the words "Caleb Maupin" one could Google was then shoveled in whether those articles are about Maupin at all or not and without regards to the source quality in an attempt to demonstrate coverage. This is ridiculous and weakens the argument that Maupin is notable in Wikipedia terms, not strengthens it. When an editor need to troll through Washington Examiner, Youtube, Breitbart, The Free Beacon and even Infowars to find one-sentence quotes and the like to try to demonstrate notability they've actually demonstrated the opposite. Attempts to offer up sites controlled by the China Ministry of Information or the Russia Ministry of Telecom and Mass Communications as WP:RS are also not persuasive and further the impression that foreign state-controlled actors are attempting to promote a profile of Maupin as a serious journalist. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment Eggishorn, you are misrepresenting the truth, again. Info-wars republished an entire article written by him presenting analysis of drugs. It wasn't a single sentence: https://www.infowars.com/drugs-duterte-the-nature-of-imperialism/ He has been the subject of news stories from Reuters, The Nation, The Atlantic.

Comment "Attempts to offer up sites controlled by the China Ministry of Information or the Russia Ministry of Telecom and Mass Communications..." Eggishorn, how is this even an argument? Because Russian and Chinese entities promote him he shouldn't have a page? You are clearly being an activist here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.135.167 ( talk) 13:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Reuters and other news outlets have done stories about him in different parts of the world

He was quoted in Reuters as a leader of the Occupy Wall Street protests in 2012. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-occupy/occupy-wall-street-marks-anniversary-with-smaller-party-idUSBRE88G0P720120917?i=10 Reuters, 2012

He has been treated similarly in The Nation: https://www.thenation.com/article/occupy-celebrates-two-years-resistance/ https://www.thenation.com/article/global-noise-worldwide-debt-protests/

The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/18/occupy-wall-street-reunites-five-years-later-it-never-ended-for-most-of-us

The Atlantic: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/occupy-wall-street-waging-civil-war-us/327436/

The Independent: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/five-years-anniversary-occupy-wall-street-zuccotti-park-new-york-protestors-banks-a7314006.html

In 2015 he was on an Iranian ship to Yemen creating an international incident. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-yemen-security-iran-ship/iranian-ship-carries-aid-and-activists-into-waters-off-yemen-idUSKBN0O20I120150518 Reuters, 2015

The ship to Yemen made quite a stir: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/reuters/article-3087859/Iran-aid-vessel-not-escorted-Iranian-warships--activists.html The Daily Mail, 2015

https://ingaza.wordpress.com/2015/05/16/dont-block-the-yemen-rescue-boat/

http://iacenter.org/nafricamideast/yemin051415/

https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/201505161022226714/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:7140:3400:61F9:8443:A37E:FE0A ( talk) 13:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC) reply

He was promoted by Julian Assange

He had a debate with Augustus Sol Invictus, who was a key organizer of the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville. The debate was promote by Julian Assange of Wikileaks. https://twitter.com/julianassange/status/899139189060632576?lang=en

Also noted here: http://21stcenturywire.com/2017/12/05/debate-revolutionary-left-vs-revolutionary-right/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.135.167 ( talk) 13:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Is someone gonna go ahead and delete this article then? I have no idea how... an admin is needed I presume? ZinedineZidane98 ( talk) 13:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete as I cannot find references and reviews of his works. I cannot see any notable awards or any impact a particular story has created. (An example of a notable journalist would be Barkha Dutt, whose stories have been widely covered and debated upon). However, this person seems to have no significant achievements. PressTV and RT are not exactly credible free media, they are propaganda outlets which I would rate similar to Infowars or Brietbart. Simply working as a journalist in one of these outlets is no claim to fame. I am a bit curious at all these keep votes by new accounts which seems like a campaign to keep this page. I hope the closing admin will disregard these. I went through some of the links posted above, but these are either unreliable sites or only a name drop. There are also some blatant false claims by some of the accounts here. For example

He was quoted in Reuters as a leader of the Occupy Wall Street protests in 2012 Link WRONG The article says said one protester, Caleb Maupin, 24, of Queens. It doesn't say he was a leader.
He has been treated similarly in The Nation [2], [3] WRONG no mention of leader, just an individual person who got arrested. It actually talks about an interview with RT, his own employer.
Guardian [4] Just a brief quote.
Atlantic [5]. Very brief and this seems to actually talk about Maupin making claims without evidence. Unfortunately for Maupin (and Iran), he doesn't have any evidence of an actual OWS plot to take up arms. It's just aspirational talk. And strange aspirational talk, for that matter, considering that Maupin works for an anti-war group founded by former US Attorney General Rasmey Clark.
Others are either quotes (Independent and Reuters story about ship) or unreliable websites

There is nothing to suggest that his works are well known or if he has won any particular award. So delete.-- DreamLinker ( talk) 17:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment DreamLinker, your arguments might have some validity if the only thing notable about Maupin was his work as a journalist. That's clearly not the case. He's page was created due to a lot of other stuff, that has been widely noted and commented on.

Keep All the arguments arguing for deletion seem to center around his work with PressTV and RT, as if this in itself makes him not notable. The logic of that is obviously politically motivated. These networks are the center of a big political controversy in the USA. That itself is an argument to keep. Prior to his work with these networks, he was a prominent Workers World Party and Occupy Wall Street activist. Sure, if all he did was get quoted a few times, there would be an argument here, but that's not the case. The Yemen ship was an international maritime incident. He was profiled in the mainstream press in Cleveland. He has interacted with Trump. He debated a prominent alt-rightist, and Julian Assange promoted it. Capital Research Group even created this documentary "America Under Siege" that contains extensive info about Maupin, with commentators analyzing his trajectory and work with Russia and Iran. He is certainly notable. The nitpicky criticisms of one quote or other don't change that. There's a whole forrest here, whether or not you like the trees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.135.167 ( talk) 02:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete. There's clearly a WP:CANVAS campaign going on given the number of anonymous and first time editors participating in this discussion. In the previous discussion I !voted keep, because there was some coverage of the subject, and it wasn't being considered. However, in the two years since there has been no additional significant coverage of Caleb Maupin, if one discounts press releases from governments in Iran, Russia, North Korea, and Syria. It looks to me like Maupin is acting as a propagandist for these countries; whether he's doing so knowingly or not is open to interpretation. Of course, there are notable propagandists, but Maupin hasn't been able to achieve that (yet). We need independent sources describing his activism or propaganda, and there aren't enough to keep an article about him at this time. Pburka ( talk) 18:18, 7 January 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete. None of the sources present in the article are about him as such — the ones that represent reliable source coverage just namecheck Maupin's existence within coverage of other things, and do not have Maupin as their subject, while the few that do have Maupin as their actual subject are all unreliable sources, such as his own staff profiles on the websites of media outlets he's worked for and a YouTube video, that can never support notability in a Wikipedia article at all. This is not how you source a person as notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Bearcat ( talk) 19:40, 7 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment There's clearly a level of canvasing going on here, because a number of people have shown up here on this page and made the same arguments, consisting of "Maupin reports for news outlets associated with countries we don't like, so he shouldn't have a page." That's not an argument according to the wiki notability standards. Its also not consistent with the facts, as Maupin is not listed here simply for his work as a journalist. The number of mainstream sources that have included Maupin, written biographical articles about him, etc. is quite numerous, and listed above. He has done a great deal of newsworthy things, beyond working for TV networks with which certain people have an axe to grind. The above post makes reference to "press releases from governments in Iran, Russia, North Korea, and Syria." What is this even referring to? Maupin has not been included in an official government press release from any of these countries, to my knowledge, and if he was, wouldn't that, itself, be notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:7140:3400:78B4:5442:B0CD:EFFA ( talk) 01:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Caleb Maupin frequently appears in press releases from Fars, the semi-official news agency of Iran, e.g. [6] [7] [8]. Appearing in government press-releases doesn't make one notable. Significant coverage in independent reliable sources does. Where are these "biographical articles about him"? Pburka ( talk) 03:59, 8 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete He's been quoted. Wow!!!!! Amazing!!!!!!! Totally significant coverage. The extreme level of sock/meat-puppetry is amusing. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 12:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete. No significant coverage of the subject itself (as opposed to alleged coverage written by the subject). James (^talk/_contribs) 22:02, 8 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep - Every comment calling for deletion is basically the same straw man argument. It consists of "all he's ever done is get quoted in media agencies from countries we don't like." Read the posts. That's now why his page was created, and that's not why it should stay. He's done way, way more than that. There's an odd desperation here, and some clear political or should I say (geopolitical) motivations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.135.167 ( talk) 03:26, 9 January 2018 (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.