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 keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:46, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dario Hunter[edit]

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

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

(({text))} Does not meet notability requirements, article is largely being used as a campaign website Jp16103 15:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to have at least 20 secondary sources on the article. In what way does it not meet notability guidelines? -- Fyrael (talk) 16:17, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The notability test for people is not just "the article has sources" — lots of people have gotten their names into the media one or more times without becoming notable because of that. Getting a Wikipedia article is not just a matter of counting the footnotes: we also evaluate the depth of how substantively any source is or isn't about the person, the geographic range of where the coverage is coming from, and the context of what the person is getting coverage for. For instance, the existence of some local press coverage in the context of serving on the local school board is not notability-making sourcing; sources which briefly mention his name in the process of being fundamentally about somebody else do not bolster his notability; and on and so forth. Bearcat (talk) 14:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your interesting use of italics has forced me to read your response in a Christopher Walken stress pattern. Thank you for the explanation though, as I'm admittedly not very familiar with notability guidelines specifically for BLP articles. I just happened upon this while patrolling recent changes. As I hadn't given an official "vote" anyway, I'll just leave it that way. -- Fyrael (talk) 14:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, only two sentences even mention Hunter's present campaign - and only in passing as a matter of fact (i.e. not as a campaign pitch). This history of this article goes back to 2012 when Hunter apparently gained media attention for being the first Muslim born person to be a rabbi. The French version of this article had a rousing discussion of the issue of his notability back then and decided then he was indeed notable enough. The article had ample mainstream media sources (it clearly has a few more now).

There's also an attempt to delete the article on Hunter's presidential campaign claiming it should be merged with this one. Seems a fishy attempt to erase Hunter - and timed with a political campaign, since this article was deemed notable for all the years its been up before now. (Hunter is arguably more notable now than then, based on the sources provided in the article.) 70.13.118.40 (talk) 16:21, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge

As I was saying in the correlating campaign article about Hunter, I think his Presidential Campaign article should be merged into one article with this one. The press coverage provided about his political activities is largely local, 7 secondary sources are linked, but 11 of the 18 citations in the article come from just three sources (Vindicator, WKBN, and WMFJ). Three sources are dead links. So the totals are 2 primary sources and four secondary sources (as I understand multiple articles from a single source count as one). Part of the criteria for notability for local politicians is as follows "A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists." I personally do not consider a few articles about a law-suit and a candidate biography to count as "significant press coverage". Hunter's current notability does not come from his actions on the school committee, or a single article claiming to be the first former Muslim becoming a Rabbi, rather, his current notability comes from his presidential campaign which is why I suggest this article being merged into a single article about his campaign which would include a section about his biography. Jp16103 17:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But you're trying to delete both articles. (?!) If you think the Pres. article should be merged into this one, then the course of action would have been to request deletion of just that one and modify this one. But you're trying to delete both and claim they will merge. Merge into what? Thin air?

And you're not looking carefully at the sources. YNetNews is Israeli, Al-Arabiya is from the UAE and Tablet Magazine is a national, notable Jewish publication. So, not just local - international, actually. The Al-Arabiya dead link can be fixed with the Wayback Machine - here's the Wayback link - https://web.archive.org/web/20120708015639/https://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/07/07/225074.html

And what is "current notability"? Not a Wiki criteria, that's what. Descartes isn't being interviewed anymore, but he once 'thought therefore he is' (on Wikipedia that is).

107.26.6.239 (talk) 17:39, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What. the. heck. dude. You just said "his current notability comes from his presidential campaign." That means he's notable and so is his campaign. (Agreed - plenty of sources for that.) But you want to delete the article on him and his campaign. That doesn't make sense. SMH. Did you just not want to do the editing to merge them? That's not what a delete request is for.

107.26.88.238 (talk) 18:27, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:59, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:59, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:59, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:00, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:00, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:00, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:02, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:02, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The existance of this AFD raises the question on the fate of the associated series template. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 02:55, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - nomination is erroneous, article has existed well before Hunter nominated himself for the the Green party. Subject has gained a fair bit of coverage for being the first Muslim-born rabbi, see ynetnews, Moroccan World News, etc. Inter&anthro (talk) 05:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep cited sources meet WP:GNG. Additional coverage of subject over the period from 2012 to the present is easily found. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject meets notability requirements. As noted above, this article existed well before Hunter's current political campaign. Funcrunch (talk) 17:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BIO. As Inter&anthro notes, this article has existed with good sourcing for many years. Yoninah (talk) 19:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There have been no questions raised about subject's notability until just now. And the timing coincides with efforts to erase all candidates other than Howie Hawkins from 2020 Green Party presidential primaries. AlanAugustson (talk) 19:43, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject meets the standards of WP:BIO. Also, the notability pre-exists the presidential campaign (see the comments of Inter&anthro), despite claims above to the contrary.--A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 20:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All the minor party Presidential candidates deserve their own articles, plus Hunter is notable as a Muslim who became a Jewish rabbi.Amyzex (talk) 22:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG Dream Focus 23:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG.Djflem (talk) 05:39, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Subject meets notability requirements. Also, Additional coverage of subject has existed with good sourcing for many years.--MA Javadi (talk) 20:08, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Request to closing editor: Is this a SNOW keep yet? Yoninah (talk) 20:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he is notable enough that there are numerous secondary sources on him. -Capriaf
Keep per WP:SNOW easily passes GNG not sure why it was nominated Lubbad85 (☎) 19:00, 16 June 2019 (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.