Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darren Grimes

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|Darren Grimes}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Darren_Grimes Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Darren Grimes}})

WP:BLP, created by an WP:SPA who may have a direct conflict of interest with regard to the subject, about a person not properly referenced as clearing our notability standards for the purposes of earning a standalone biography. Of the 15 references here, 10 are total non-starters in terms of getting a person over WP:GNG -- genealogy records, primary source "staff" profiles on the self-published websites of organizations he's directly affiliated with, his own Twitter tweets, his own crowdfunding campaign, non-notable blogs, etc. And among the five sources that are actually real media, one is a Q&A interview in which he's talking about himself in the first person, and one is locked behind a paywall which leaves me no way to verify whether it's substantively about him or just namechecks his existence in the process of being fundamentally about someone or something else -- and all of the other three are covering him in the context of a single incident that just makes him a WP:BLP1E.
Nothing here is strong or well-sourced evidence that we need a biographical article about him as a person, separately from his name already being mentioned in BeLeave -- people are not automatically entitled to have BLP articles about them as people just because they were founder or president of a group that has an article, so nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have much better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 19:44, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:44, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:44, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

: I think he’s becoming fairly notable, so I would leave the article for now. — TrottieTrue (talk) 03:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

::Wikipedia's notability standards are based on the existence or non-existence of reliable source coverage about the person, not your unverified personal opinions about what the person is "becoming". Bearcat (talk) 15:14, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Based on the criteria you have set out. This page meets the notability standards more than many other pages currently hosted. You seem to be attaching a fair few of your own "personal opinions" here. Johnlilburne666 (talk) 15:14, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

::I already explained in my nomination statement why the sources on offer here aren't what we're talking about when we say that sources are required. Not every web page that exists is automatically always a reliable or notability-supporting source — we require a certain specific kind of sources, and none of the sources here are the correct kind. Bearcat (talk) 00:27, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - clearly this is a run of the mill, young, non-notable political activist. The coverage on him is shallow and unreliable. That other articles should also be deleted or that the issues he espouses are important do not matter. We are not a British web-host, we are an American charity subject to New York laws about charities. Bearian (talk) 18:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Redirect to BeLeave. As best I can tell, he is known almost entirely because of his involvement with BeLeave (WP:BLP1E), specifically its high-profile investigation by the Electoral Commission, and BeLeave consisted almost entirely of him (see for example [https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/17/darren-grimes-the-student-pro-brexit-activist-fined-22k-vote-leave]), so having two articles is duplicative. There are some in-depth stories about him [https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/17/darren-grimes-the-student-pro-brexit-activist-fined-22k-vote-leave], [https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-03-29/young-lgbt-advocate-isn-t-your-average-brexiteer], [https://thecritic.co.uk/issues/november-2019/darren-against-remains-goliath/] but two of those are explicitly about the BeLeave saga and the other is simply his views on Brexit again, nothing worth covering separately. Since it seems to have been largely a solo project (notwithstanding the Vote Leave interactions), perhaps some biographical information could be added there. The article notes that he features at number 94 on a list of 100 influential Conservatives compiled by LBC but I don't think that satisfies WP:ANYBIO. › Mortee _talk 20:03, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• Redirect to BeLeave. He is primarily only notable in the context of that organisation. His legal difficulties fall into the category of WP:BLP1E. Hug^syrup 13:17, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV based on the sources already presented here and in the article. He's notable for founding the organization and for his legal difficulties which are two separate things making WP:BLP1E obsolete. A merger into BeLeave should be discussed on the talk page and not at AFD. 4meter4 (talk) 22:42, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

::"Merge" and "redirect" are possible outcomes of deletion discussions. Now it's been nominated for deletion, discussing those options is appropriate. I also don't think founding the organisation and the legal issue are separate notability claims (would the organisation have been notable without the legal issue?), or reasons to cover Grimes separately from BeLeave. › Mortee _talk 23:09, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

:::{{ping|Mortee}} Merger and redirects are appropriate outcomes at AFD only when an article does not have enough RS to satisfy GNG but the content is still of value to the encyclopedia elsewhere. In this case, there is enough RS for the subject to have its own article, so a merger to BeLeave is not necessary. Essentially, merger discussions like this should be help on the article's talk page where there is no time clock involved.4meter4 (talk) 23:21, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

::::{{re|4meter4}} To reverse that, "keep" is an appropriate outcome at AfD only if the article should be kept, not redirected or merged into another article instead (and the GNG don't guarantee a "keep", e.g. if the article is a content fork or the topic is for whatever reason best covered elsewhere). We disagree about whether there are RS showing Grimes' notability separate from that of BeLeave, which is fine and whoever closes this will weigh up the arguments each way. › Mortee _talk 23:43, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

:::::{{re|Mortee}}, that's not policy. If GNG is met we keep. Period. Granted, content forks are often dealt with here by necessity, but this is not a content fork because companies are not individuals and vice versa. The decision to merge the two into one article, is essentially an editorial decision and not a policy based enforceable decision. AFD should not become the host to merger discussions on articles that both meet GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 23:57, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

::::::The first part of that is wrong. Two identical articles would both meet the GNG. We would keep one of them. This is turning into a meta-argument that isn't helping, though, so I suggest we leave this here. › Mortee _talk 01:27, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep - clearly notable based on ongoing coverage of his being investigated over alleged wrong-doings and campaigning for pro-Brexit causes. FOARP (talk) 22:33, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

::Per WP:CRIME: "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person" - which there clearly is in this case: BeLeave. Hug^syrup 09:13, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep - Grimes has become a well known figure in the UK's political debate sphere, beyond being a simple political activist. His name retrieves more than 2,920,000 results on a Google search, which, whilst not being a full indication of notability, demonstrates the amount of coverage that he has received. --RaviC (talk) 23:43, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

::An argument based on lots of Google hits is an argument to be avoided in a deletion discussion and is likely to be discounted by the closing administrator. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:33, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

::We evaluate the quality, not the quantity, of Google hits. For example, a Google hit can mention his name without being about him, and thus not contribute anything toward establishing his notability. A Google hit can represent him talking about himself or other things in the first person, and thus not contribute anything toward establishing his notability. A Google hit can be written by him, not about him, and thus not contribute anything toward establishing his notability. A Google hit can not even be a reliable source at all, and thus not contribute anything toward establishing his notability. And on and so forth: simply saying that somebody has some megaboss number of Google hits is not a notability freebie in and of itself, and what you have to show is the number of media sources that represent third party, third person coverage about him as a subject in his own right independently of merely mentioning him in the process of being fundamentally about the organization. Bearcat (talk) 16:37, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

:::I understand this, which is why I accepted that such a reference is "not being a full indication of notability". That said, many of these hits are from WP:RS sources, such as the BBC, Telegraph, PoliticsHome and Sky. --RaviC (talk) 13:50, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.