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 no consensus. MBisanz talk 02:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Garrison Courtney[edit]

Garrison Courtney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This is a vanity page. Nothing is cited. I can't find anything on the DEA website that identifies Courtney as: "Chief of Public Affiars." Pilkington1984(talk) This user is an SPA created to file deletion process, see Special:Contributions/Pilkington1984 --Abd (talk) 16:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)][reply]

This is a courtesy renomination. The article was originally placed incorrectly on WP:MFD. Zetawoof(ζ) 08:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete: Gonzonoir, these links prove that he does exist, but he is not mentioned in the Drug Enforcement Administration article or any of the other linked articles. The DEA website has no bio information on Garrison Courtney. This article reads like a resume and links to no secondary sources providing evidence of notability. The article also contains no citations to verify the claims it makes. This edit I have striken was unsigned, it was by Special:Contributions/216.15.36.81, who is clearly the nominator, who began by vandalizing Garrison Courtney. --Abd (talk) 16:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC) [reply]
    • Unstricken - If you believe the IP editor is a sockpuppet, you are free to open a sockpuppet case. But you should ot arbitrarily strike out another editor's comments without positive proof. As an IP editor, the opionion expressed may be given less weight in this dicsussion, but it is the closing administrator's duty to review and cosnider as appropriate. -- Whpq (talk) 17:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The identity of the two editors is so blatant that SSP isn't needed, unless Whpq wishes to contest it. I'd suggest looking at the edit histories, as pointed to above in my smallnote, and at my comment on Talk here, and at the current AN/I report on this issue, which is quite explicit (at the top). Please don't disrupt Wikipedia by beating dead horses. They are the same editor. --Abd (talk) 20:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. DEA official web site --> top domain, not independent, bad source
    News from DEA - News Releases --> Again not independent and it is the news releases with just his name on them.
    The University of Montana Broadcast Journalism Department --> Site search on Courtney's name yielded zero results, only tangentally related.
    LinkedIn: Garrison Courtney --> Not a reliable source.
    Virginia Association of Museums Annual Conference - March 25 to 28, 2006 - Speaker Biographies PDF (46 KiB) --> dead link
    Northern Network News - April 20, 2007 PDF (132 KiB) --> Finally! A good source, but it's short.

My conclusion is that there are too few reliable sources to build a biography with. - Mgm|(talk) 09:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me like something might be broken with the site search for the UM Broadcast Journalism Department. He's got a listing in the Alumni Association. I didn't take the link out, but someone might. He did graduate there, class of 2000. --Abd (talk) 01:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct, it doesn't establish notability. The DEA position does, plus there is RS on his work for Katherine Harris; the editorship of NoMoCo is simply an independently-sourced fact. The article now has sources, nobody had bothered. (Still far from perfect, but there is enough source for a stub bio.) Please, how does an "extremely minor school" differ from a "minor school," or, for that matter, from a "school" that's part of a state university system? Or is this just AfD hyperbole? --Abd (talk) 01:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This appears to be your second !vote in the relisting. Rlendog (talk) 22:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - The "ease" at finding sources isn't demonstrated with your example. At issue is notability. The Spike TV bit above is a press release. Furthermore, the claim that the PR piece reported him "on location" is blown completely out of proportion. The only mention of him is that he is the press contact on location in Detroit. That's not even in the main body of the press release. As for the references in trhe article as of this version, we have:
  1. A press release which establishes his position. It verifies a fact but does not establish notability.
  2. Alumni announcement from his university. Again, it verifies facts but does not establish notbility.
  3. A news article from the Sarasota Herald Tribune. It has 3 sentences about him in the article text (counting his quote), and one item in the timeline summary. However, he is not the primary subject of the article, and the coverage is not significant.
  4. A brief tid-bit in the MSU newspaper. This is like the alumni notice. It doesn't do much to establish notability.
-- Whpq (talk) 11:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Spike TV press release was not used to establish notability, but the title, as Whpq agrees. My point about the title is that the nomination raised the issue, and the implication there was that this might be peacock or exaggeration, a theme picked up by one !vote which raised the issue of a single editor creating the article (isn't that what usually happens, absent mountains of attention?). No, he's the Section Chief, all right. Now, is that a notable position? If so, we should have an article on the position, or on the person holding it. I prefer the former, in this case; that article then would have a short bio for any such person who held the position, if they don't already have their own article. In other words, Merge would be fine with me, as well as Keep. If we Merge, then the original article, which might have more detail, is there in history for anyone who wishes to see it. Keep until and unless we have the position article. As argument for notability: Newspapers could easily cite a DEA press release, and I assume many do, without giving the name of the person issuing. Some of the sources apparently actually contacted Courtney. They find it of interest to their readers ("notable") who was responsible for the statement. Courtney does not merely issue press releases, he manages Public Affairs, which covers weightier matters, hence the Spike TV involvement, "on location."
It is also possible that merge would be to Drug Enforcement Administration. In that case, there would be a section on the Public Affairs officer, which would show the current holder and perhaps any notable previous holders. The name of Garrison Courtney is not infrequently in news reports. A reader may say, "I've seen that name before, who is that," and, turning to the most complete (and ultimately, reliable, we are getting there) organized source of information on the internet, looks up the name. Anything found? My work on the article was ito make it verifiable, not to establish notability. Is it a notable position? And, on that topic, I turn to you, dear community, for guidance. The !votes here are mixed with opinions about the person holding it. If it is a notable position, then our readers deserve, if nothing else, a redirect from the name of a holder to where we cover the position, and a short bio of the holder there, if not separately. Garrison Courtney is slightly notable because of Katherine Harris, and marginally notable because of the DEA position. I'd say that marginal notability is additive. Your call. --Abd (talk) 15:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The reason he is quoted is because he is the PR spokesperson. That happens with the DEA, as well as with corporations issuing press releases. These people are named as the point of contact specifically on press release. That's why they are being contacted. That's not notability. I'm still waiting to see the in-depth coverage of Garrison Courtney in reliable sources. I see a lot of opinions that he ought to be notable. Yet there isn't any proof. The strongest item to date is the tid-bit from his university newspaper. That is a very weak. -- Whpq (talk) 17:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And, then, why did Ron Ritzman relist? Normally, an AfD like this would close as Keep or No Consensus. There is no principle that we need to argue until we find "consensus" on an AfD; rather, Keep is the default, and for good reason. Contentious debate on marginal notability is disruptive. For the record, neither Zetawoof or Ritzman are administrators, and non-admin closures should be non-controversial or clearly based in policy. Relisting an AfD before it has been closed? Why? Because you don't like the way it's going? --Abd (talk) 16:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The relisting was a red herring, for which I apologize. The problem was the original nomination, created here by Zetawoof. --Abd (talk) 21:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The problem" was the original nomination on MFD. My moving it here was an obvious, uncontroversial bit of cleanup (which by no means required an administrator to carry out), and I really don't appreciate the attitude that I'm somehow at fault for doing so. Zetawoof(ζ) 21:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When I do much less than this to assist a blocked editor, I get flak. Get over it or get out of the kitchen. "Cleanup" would have consisted in (1) removing the MfD, and (2), offering to assist the editor, which would mean taking responsibility for what you do, not simply dismissing it as "cleanup." First thing you should have checked: editor history, and you should have looked at the article itself and its edit history. From the nominator's history, in a matter of seconds, you'd have known to be suspicious. From the article history, you'd have seen the vandalism immediately. If you are comfortable with assisting a vandal to nominate the vandal's target for deletion, well, to me be my actions and to you yours. Enough said? --Abd (talk) 23:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did, in fact, look at the nominator's history and found nothing obviously amiss, as there was simply nothing there, and I see little value in assuming bad faith on the part of new users. I probably should have looked at the history page and caught the connection there; on the other hand, having (possibly?) vandalized an article does not immediately disqualify a user from nominating it for deletion, and there is at least some merit in the argument put forth (i.e, it's not an obvious bad-faith nom), seeing as how there are a number of users here who have seconded the deletion. Zetawoof(ζ) 01:45, 3 March 2009 (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.
More