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. slakr^\ talk / 03:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Bergfeld[edit]

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

This person does not reach the required notability for inclusion on Wikipedia (see WP:N). Andy (talk) 00:00, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Andy (talk) 00:00, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 March 15. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 00:14, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Bergfeld has been the subject of, and or heavily quoted by, numerous WP:RS sources. That alone is enough to ring the notability bell (see WP:GNG). Beyond which he is indisputably a prominent figure in radical left student politics in Great Britain and was one of the instigators of the recent massive student riots. As far as I can tell he passes WP:GNG, WP:BASIC and arguably WP:POLITICIAN. All of that aside, many of the cited sources also fail RS for being affiliated or biased and in some cases are trivial in their coverage. But notability is not an issue. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:46, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Changing my vote based on WP:BLP1E and compelling arguments by User:Andymmu. See way down in the discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite Bergfeld being the subject of a newspaper article when he ran for the Presidency of NUS, since he lost that election quite heavily I don't think he can be called a notable person. He was a prominent figure of the student radical left, but the radical left in UK student politics is very small and has been for a significant amount of time now. Also, to describe the (albeit newsworthy) student protests of 2010 as massive or riots is very misleading, as is the the idea that Bergfeld was an instigator or organiser. The original NUS demonstration had nothing to do with Bergfeld (as he was an NUS council member, not an executive officer) and the protests that followed were organised by the National Campaign Against Fees and Cuts and the University of London Union, neither of which Bergfeld was an orgainiser in. His article is orphaned, which could be taken to mean that even the organisations he was a member of, such as the Socialist Workers Student Society (which does appear on Wikipedia), don't believe he is or was notable enough to be mentioned on their pages. I'm not saying that there wasn't a time where some students recognised his name, they would have had to been student politics hacks, and most current hacks wouldn't recognise him. Finally, WP:N#TEMP clearly states "In particular, if reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." I believe Bergfeld will remain a low-profile individual, and therefore the article should be deleted. Andy (talk) 03:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. Orser67 (talk) 01:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- fails WP:POLITICIAN and the rest is all NN. He has apparently managed to get into the media as a SWP spokesman, but that does not make him notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:53, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:50, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I doubt we're going to get much more debate on this AfD discussion, but let me reiterate the clear guideline set down in the Wikipedia policy WP:BLP1E. Has Bergfeld had a major role in the student protests of 2010? No, not even any credible sources that implicate him. Did he stand for NUS President? Yes, but he wasn't elected (or even close) and therefore fails WP:POLITICIAN. Has he been in the media? Yes, but not recently, and if I phoned up the Mail telling them I was a rebel student leader during those protests, I would have been quoted as well! Nevertheless, I will point you again to WP:BLP1E and say that he was only notable at all because of student activism (in a very minor way) and that passed some time ago. He is low profile and will continue to be so. Under Wikipedia policies, this article should be deleted. Andymmu^talk 00:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The subject unquestionably meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. With regard to his current doings, this is irrelevant. Notability has no expiration date and does not need to be renewed WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Once notable, always notable. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Read the GNG again. The subject is presumed, not guaranteed, to be suitable for a stand alone article. But nevertheless, around half of the references are primary sources (mostly websites of parties that he was involved with - his own articles do not give him notibility), and the secondary sources are either one or two line quotes or simply his name mentioned in passing (the basic criteria says "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability") - with the exception of the article profiling him when running for NUS President, which he didn't win and therefore he fails WP:POLITICIAN, and even if all that wasn't enough WP:BLP1E is very clear. If reliable sources significantly cover a person only for one event, if that person remains a low-profile individual, if the event was not significant (if you're talking about the NUS Presidential election) or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented (for the student protests) then we should generally avoid having an article on such a person. So despite arguably (and certainly not "unquestionably") meeting the GNG, detailed Wikipedia policies clearly state we shouldn't have the article. Andymmu^talk 02:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, can I further point out that WP:BASIC specifically references WP:BLP1E as a policy that would exclude the subject from being notable, even if it would otherwise pass the GNG or have basic notability. Andymmu^talk 03:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you have convinced me. BLP1E trumps BASIC and GNG. Changing my vote to delete. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:39, 2 April 2014 (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.