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. A number of sources have been proposed, but there's deep disagreement over the quality. We don't seem to have any meeting of the minds on what constitutes trivial vs. significant coverage, with rational arguments being made on both sides about specific sources. -- RoySmith(talk) 19:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"importante figure de l'alt-right" (French Version of VICE -- link)
There is no need for a biography in the mentioned source. Also I do think that reasons given in the last discussion -- where a clear majority proposed "keep" -- are valid. Sincerely, 93.224.97.95 (talk) 22:04, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Those comments are entirely unrelated to the rationale. Either provide sources, rewriting the article or don't waste time arguing this is important for some political fringe.
You still only cite the sources that mention him in passing. Carl Fredrik talk 14:06, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you absolutely think that an article with numerous mentions is indispensable to substantiate relevance, look here:
but your rationale is flawed. It actually does matter what a source is saying. And don't waste time with an erroneous inference trying to diminish relevance using the phrase "political fringe".
P.S. This proposed deletion reminds me of your flawed rationale and failed proposal to merge the articles "white supremacy" and "Identitarian movement".
I didn't know I had proposed that. Nice sleuthing. Anyhow, this still fails quite hard on WP:GNG per:
Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
P.S. Flawed rationale again. Just for your enlightenment: it was not "sleuthing", I just remembered that nonsensical proposal which I had responded to (I wrote "reminds me", actually not that hard to understand), went to the corresponding article, clicked 500 views and let the browser look for "CFCF", a matter of seconds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.224.110.175 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Delete - a definite delete. Fails GNG and BIO. Only trivial coverage in all sources. The subject has not received significant attention in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. References and other sources consist of one line or two line mentions in articles of varying topics pertaining to the alt-right. Here is how the references do not support this subject for a stand alone article:
New York Times - one sentence coverage in the whole article.
Media Matters - two lines and this source is probably not an independent reliable source - it is a blog supporting a personal point of view.
The last two references are the same. I am willing to critique them here if necessary. The sources posted at this AfD are of the same nature. Only passing mentions. There is not enough material in these sources to maintain an acceptable biography per Wikipedia standards. The lack of sourcing also indicates this subject fails WP:BLP. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 02:31, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Steve, I looked up the NYTimes citation you dismiss. While it is not a profile, and offers no in-depth coverage of Ramsay, it does say: "Paul Ray Ramsey, a Trump supporter and popular alt-right internet personality..." This is a RS describing Ramsay as popular, and, as such, offers some support for his notability. Together with the details on his life and work provided by the SPLC which enable us to source an article, descriptors like "popular" in RS publications validate notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:07, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment: the reason the Kansas City Star article [[1] fails as an acceptable source for this topic is because it is a bunch of quotes by the subject. This is trivial coverage. This is not coverage that significantly discusses this person. This is in contrast to Richard Spenser for most or all the sources posted here. He and his behavior are independently discussed ad infinitum. The Hungarian source [2] is also trivial coverage on its own because no other reliable sources cover this desire to be an ambassador - therefore verification fails. Also, this is coverage of only what Ramsey says, without any kind of critical eye lent to the writing. And a biography article on Wikipedia cannot depend on only one sketchy source (I also doubt it qualifies as WP:RS - no independent editing staff, fact checkers, and so on). ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:08, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's always a matter of interpretation what is considered trivial. "Definite delete"? For a long period of time mentioned again and again in the media, more than 40 thousand subscribers and 13 million visits (for a far-right political channel!), and now this media turmoil concerning the alt-right, wherein he played his role, cf. e.g. American Renaissance-conference. Looking at the other discussion about whether to keep or delete one can see that the media coverage does not have to be interpreted as "trivial". It does of course depend on the picked comparison, e.g. comparing to David Duke would dwarf this coverage even more. 93.224.110.238 (talk) 08:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is not really a matter of interpretation. The appropriate guideline was quoted above per GNG:
Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
Also:
"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content.
Passing mentions are specifically noted in the guidelines, and the guidelines are summations of our core content policies. Furthermore, anyone quoted in a news article or in a TV interview is a primary source sharing information about themselves, their activities, or anything they are connected to. The same goes for YouTube videos, self-posted videos somewhere else, and so on, no matter how many subscribers and views (which can be achieved with bots, by the way). This material is non-independent and would contravene the neutral point of view policy, if it were deemed acceptable as verification for notability. It is clear on Wikipedia what is trivial and what is not, and what is independent coverage and what is not. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:20, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To see the extent to which rules are a matter of interpretation, one has to only look at how they are applied in practice. 93.224.105.81 (talk) 08:50, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:07, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems like a pretty clear GNG pass, for better or worse. Artw (talk) 05:20, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep if the SPLC thinks he needs a bio, we ought to have one too. Mangoe (talk) 20:29, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as has been twice shown in this discussion, this bio does not pass GNG, BIO {BASIC, ANYBIO), and so on. Passing mentions, and printing quotes, are the definition of trivial coverage. Also, asserting a false equivalence by saying the SPLC has a biography so we ought to have one, does not really work. Coverage is needed by multiple other sources according to BASIC, ANYBIO, and GNG, and because right now, the SPLC source is a one-off. We have notability criteria to fulfill and that is not based on one organization or one reliable source. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 23:35, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep largely for the reason I stated in the last AfD, coverage, WP:SIGCOV including this 2013 profile 2013 magazine article, brought by User:Animalparty to the recent AfD establisheds notability. Double-checking myself, however, I ran a quick search on his blog handle: RamZPaul, here: [3] and can see that non-trivial, RS that didn't come up under his full name; the first 2 hits are to The Atlantic, one of these mentions reads "Popular American far-right YouTube and Twitter personality RamZPaul, who has lived in the Hungarian capital off and on since 2013, tweeted in February to nearly 35,000 followers: “Budapest is like Paris of the 1920s. #Hungary.” Steve Quinn, Look, I may not like him, and up until, oh, say, ~two weeks ago I didn't take our U.S. right-wing fascist-wannabe's seriously. But since Charlottesville, I have doubled down on my opinion that we need to keep an eye on 'em. And RS coverage of Paul more than passes notability. This article needs expansion/improvement.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:58, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete entirely sourced to POV pushing articles intent of over-emphasizing the influence of people with ephemeral influence.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:08, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as E.M. Gregory has shown there is only one source that significantly (and non-trivially) covers this topic, and that is the SPLC article. However, the other source targets a Google search results page. This essentially shows a list of articles. Each have one or two line passing mentions of RamZPaul the blogger (Paul Ray Ramsey's alter ego). This set of articles merely quotes his response to a number of events, and those events are the actual topics of each article. They do not cover RamZPaul the blogger in any non-trivial way. Once again fails GNG, BASIC, ANYBIO, ISNOT, and so on. However, the effort is appreciated. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:04, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You misstate what I wrote. I mentioned a couple of sources, there are also others that provide WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't misstate what you wrote. One line mentions are trivial coverage. Also, quotes are primary sources, they are not independent coverage. There is nothing that I see that passes WP:SIGCOV. More than trivial coverage is needed in each source according to all the guidelines referenced in this AfD. One complete article on one website is not enough. The purpose of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources is for verification. But it seems people forget this. And I have no more to say here. I am done with this AfD. Farewell, and good day to all. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Besides the SPLC source there are at least these three (just found the third one) sources were the subject is not only mentioned "in passing" ([4]The Kansas City Star, [5]Népszava, [6]The Raw Story). Of course one could always find some reason or angle to sort them out -- well, considering the Hungarian source the "verification fails"? Another one consists of quotations -- so what? It's not a mentioning in passing and adds relevance. Furthermore -- being mentioned again and again in passing -- one can easily find numerous instances -- does show his role after all.
Summa summarum -- as long as the subject's role in the alt-right is relevant enough, the aim should be to gather information for the Wikipedia-article and not kick out every source one by one for not being verifiable and explicitly biographical. 93.224.108.150 (talk) 08:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 20:12, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- the SPLC profile is quite in depth: link. I believe that this plus other sources brought up at this AfD sufficiently establish notability of the subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:00, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Guy into Books (talk) 15:41, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a soapbox. There's no content here other than his political positions. There's no claim that he meets any specific notability guidelines. I don't feel that people can meet GNG solely by being obnoxious to reporters, as in [7]. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:29, 17 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.