Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
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. Consensus is that number of Twitter followers and the like are not evidence of notability Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:28, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adam D Brown

[edit]
Adam D Brown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable politician. I've declined G11 and this is way over the A7 bar, but IMO still fails GNG. GoldenRing (talk) 09:43, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:53, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Non notable? He has 10 times the name recognition of most pages with locally elected officials or candidates. Thank you for not deleting the page. I am not a member of Adam's publicity team nor do I represent him. I only created the username because I actually thought it would lend more credibility. I obviously wasn't aware of the policy. So I will refrain from using it. I will also provide more sources on the page to help show that Mr. Brown is worthy of being categorized as a someone who meets criteria on notability. I will also refrain from using sources that lend any bias, it's hard because he's a political figure, but there are dozens of articles about him. Also links to television interviews.
Thanks for giving me a chance to get his page going. Any and all constructive criticism is welcome. Aduanebrown (talk) 10:09, 31 August 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Aduanebrown (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS on Wikipedia, which you raised on the article's talk page, but that is not a good argument in a deletion discussion - we are discussing his notability. How does he meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOL? Which sources do you feel prove this? Boleyn (talk) 11:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the page. Just needs some edits. His Twitter says he has like 30 thousands followers, while that doesn't necessarily tell you how popular a person is, it sure is a lot of people who know of him. Joshaaron18 (talk) 10:21, 31 August 2017 (UTC) — Joshaaron18 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Confirmed sockpuppet, !vote struck. Yunshui 雲水 11:16, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Number of Twitter followers is definitely not something which contributes to WP:NPOL or WP:GNG, and many, many people have more followers than that, and are still not notable. How do you think he meets WP:NPOL or WP:GNG? Are you conected to the subject? It seems strange that your first edits to Wikipedia are on a deletion discussion. Boleyn (talk) 11:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've copied the above from where they were wrongly posted (this discussion's talk page). Both are similarly formatted and by WP:SPAs. Boleyn (talk) 10:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've reformatted Aduanebrown and Joshaaron18's comments so they don't have headings and their votes are clear. I hope that's OK with them, I haven't changed any content. Boleyn (talk) 10:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He meets WP GNG "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" Even the NYT called him a republican commentator. That's listed and linked — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aduanebrown (talk • contribs) 11:07, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A person has to be substantively the subject of media coverage to get over WP:GNG. He does not get past GNG just because the New York Times has mentioned that he exists. Bearcat (talk) 06:11, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also No one said social media followers were the main reason. That obviously wouldn't qualify him. I along with others believed that he had far more press coverage than did others with wiki pages in the political arena. It's really a losing argument. He's notable. More so than majority of wiki pages dedicated to local office holders or political figures. Should we delete them...? No, because they are important too...but they don't have half of the coverage he does. His policy paper on economics is literally on the President's old campaign site, pulled from The Hill. Not sure why we're pulling teeth here. Aduanebrown (talk) 11:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Response My comment about Twitter followers was directed to Joshaaron18, and it was the only argument he put forward. Are you the same user? You've again and again commented on other articles, despite being redirected to comment on this one. But should they be deleted? As I've said before, probably some of them should, and some of them will meet the criteria in different ways - but how does Brown meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG is what we are discussing here. You haven't established that there is coverage which meets the criteria you will see if you click on WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 11:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not notable as a politician, and lacks significant coverage generally. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 11:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Response
What type of coverage are you looking for. We've provided links to: Breitbart, NYT, NJ.com, Forbes, The Hill.... That's a lot of publicly for a "local political figure"
You can't just keep saying it doesn't fit the criteria, it does. He's a mjor local political figure who has received significant press coverage. That's what your standard is here. Your trying to shut down a page of someone who meets criteria. Not to mention his page is not biased or self promoting. I'm prepared to add even more links. Including Fox Interview.
Aduanebrown (talk) 11:38, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You've mentioned a couple of times now, 'we think', 'we've provided links', I'll ask again, who are 'we'? (you ignored this last time) and you also ignored: what is your connection to the other WP:SPA on this, Joshaaron18? Boleyn (talk) 11:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Response We are conservative voters who know who Mr. Brown is and want him to have his place on Wikipedia. He meets criteria and doesn't have a self promoting page. It doesn't make a difference who I am, I've only meet him once at a Christe for NJ rally. But I read his op-eds and such. Nevertheless, this is about keeping his page, not who we are. Who are you that you can just sit on the internet and comment about people you know nothing about..? Don't answer that, I don't care. My point is, I know some people don't deserve a page because they don't meet criteria, he does. It's not about you or me, it's about this page.
Aduanebrown (talk) 11:54, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Aduanebrown, please stop adding keep to your comments, this has been revoked several times. By writing keep in bold, you are making a vote. One person, one vote. Anything after that is comment or response in bold, or a colon. If you do this after it has been pointed out in the edit summary several times that you should not, it will be assumed to be disruptive editing, just as your edit warring over the speedy deletion tag was disruptive editing. Boleyn (talk) 12:54, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Response: sorry, wasn't aware how the voting process works. I thought it was based on just the facts, like the ones I have been pointing out. But hey, democracy!
Aduanebrown (talk) 13:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Obviously; when the subject is not describe in a single in-depth secondary source, they fail WP:GNG. From the little useful information we have available, it appears he has not won a major election and falls short of WP:NPOL. I also thought the article was promoting his agenda which is why I tagged it for speedy deletion.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Brown fails the notability guideline for politicians and the general notability guideline. While conflict of interest isn't a reason in itself to delete, it's pretty clear from this AfD that there is some undeclared conflict here. And some quacking from the second keep !vote. DrStrauss talk 15:45, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non-notable. Beyond that, the username suggest the person behind the account is the subject himself (i.e. self-vanity article). Worse, the constant use of "we" suggest there is a team of people behind the scene using the same account. Finally, I suspect sockpuppetry based on User:Joshaaron18's vote stacking.--Cahk (talk) 16:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non notable, not entirely sure I believe there isn't some shady COI stuff going on here as well. --PureRED | talk to me | 19:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not even close to meeting NPOL and no non-political claim of notability. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is nothing here that constitutes a claim of notability and there is none of the required in-depth coverage either in this article or found in a Google search. Alansohn (talk) 20:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This page is completely useless and offers nothing notable. Fails WP:NPOL. Plus, it looks like he made the page himself. Sorry guy, you need to do more to be considered notable by Wikipedia standards. MountMichigan (talk) 23:11, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing here passes a notability criterion, and the sourcing isn't cutting it in the least — he has to be the subject of the coverage, not just glancingly namechecked in coverage of other things, to pass GNG. Wikipedia also does not owe anybody an article, as the creator seems to think. Also, I share the view expressed above that there's a fairly obvious conflict of interest here. Bearcat (talk) 06:11, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am not very convinced this article makes any coherent claims to notability. Lets see, he wrote an editorial for The Hill in favor of candidate Donald J. Trump, in 2016. While I would suspect most editorials on the presidential election published in 2016 in The Hill especially if we take the year as a whole, were not in favor of Trump, I am sure that Brown's was not the only one, nor is The Hill a paper of the level that one editorial there makes you notable. Even the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal and New York Times are not prominent enough to make regular reporters for them default notable, let alone one time editorial contributors. Let us see what else. Brown criticized H. R. Clinton's nomination acceptance speech, but our main source on that issue speaks of such criticisms in the plural, and mainly focuses on Brown's and a few associated as a form of political action to try to discredit the oposition to their views. Clearly not enough for notability. Brown ran for a schoolboard and got just over 30 votes as a write-in candidate. Even if he had won that would not make him notable. Even the race-rhetoric to oppose schools of choice spewing member of the school board of my local district of 16,000 students does not rate an article. Technically he did not mention race, but in metro-Detroit when people attack "out of district students" it is code for speaking ill against African-Americans. Never mind lots of African-Americans live in our district boundaries, it is still much lower than in parts of South Warren, and way below the level of Detroit. Although to be truthful, some of these students live in Detroit and use the address of an auntie, cousin or some other relative to go to Warren Consolidated Schools. And some are honor role students who then get killed by a drive-by shooter while visiting their grandma's in Detroit. Although the last example I believe did actually live in my fair city of Sterling Heights. So she probably could stay if we unwisely ended schools of choice, but that does not mean the school board member wants her to feel welcome. I am still outraged that my neighbors are so uncaring as to vote in the school board someone who is not only racist but clearly does not get how Michigan's school funding operates. It is a major drawback to free-for-all voting, where a person can influenced the results by plunking, that controversial figures can get elected more easily. Back to Brown, being elected to the school board not only would not gaurantee his notability, there are very, very few people notable for being on a school board. If Brown had been a nomination holder in a race for US congress, he would not even be default notable. The menion of what he says on his twitter account is even less of a show of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:29, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on the twitter issue, there are twitter accounts that tweet maybe once a month and have 188,000 followers. So the notion that having about 30,000 followers makes someone notable is hard to justify.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:48, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Forbes article mentioning his tweet, shows tweets from I believe 4 other individuals as well, some of the others showing multiple tweets. Having a tweet by you mentioned in a publication, even in a notable publication, is not a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:55, 2 September 2017 (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.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FAdam_D_Brown

Leave a Reply