Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harold Covington

:{{la|Harold Covington}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Harold_Covington Stats])

:({{Find sources|Harold Covington}})

Subject of the article is not a notable person and subject of the article has been found to use persistent sock puppetry to vandalize the article Wasp14 (talk) 18:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC) — Wasp14 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep -- this person easily meets WP:BIO. Sock-puppetry is not a reason for deletion, and in any event the article is currently semi-protected so that "new" users are unable to edit it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so. Although there has been an edit war over this article lasting years, it is a war between the subject of the article, Harold Covington, and various rivals of his in the white supremacy scene. However, neither Mr. Covington nor any of the other persons who have edited the article (including me) are notable persons. The fact that a handful of persons have shown interest in editing the article does not mean the subject is notable. Harold Covington is not a real published author of note. His books are all self-published vanity books that he sells over the internet. The fact that Mr. Covington unsuccessfully ran for the Republican nomination for a minor State political office (NC Attorney General) certainly does not make him a notable politician. The fact that he may or may not have been a lower enlisted person in the Rhodesian army is certainly not something of note. The fact that he maintains a number of Blogspot blogs and Yahoo! groups, with a small readership, where he espouses white supremacy, certainly does not make him notable. His "Northwest Front" is nothing more than a website and a PO Box. It is not a significant notable organization within the white supremacy scene. In fact, he has never been the head of a major white supremacy organization. As the article points out, he acted as an imposter claiming on the internet to be the head of a Nazi party, which was in fact actually headed by someone else. This does not make him a notable person. Although he has been occasionally mentioned on the websites and in the publications of some anti-racist organizations, which discuss the subject of white supremacy in great detail, he is not listed as a top figure in white supremacy by these anti-racist organizations.Wasp14 (talk) 18:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Very notable guy, easily passes WP:BIO & WP:GNG, as evidenced in the coverage he has received:[http://books.google.com/books?id=nNWbbhUYv8oC&pg=PA76][http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=_z4aAAAAIBAJ&sjid=SSQEAAAAIBAJ&pg=1698,3273725&dq=harold+covington&hl=en][http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=I28sAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ys0EAAAAIBAJ&pg=5977,4048215&dq=harold+covington&hl=en]. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Your sources are not notable. The book "Codename Greenkil", which concerns the Greensboro shooting, was originally self-published by Elizabeth Wheaton in 1987, and much later published by the University of Georgia in 2009 and is not a reliable, neutral source. Your other sources are just brief mentions of Covington in a couple of small town NC newspapers, which were covering the Greensboro shooting. If the main reason Mr. Covinginton is of any note is related to the Greensboro shooting, then perhaps his article should be merged with the article about the Greensboro massacre. Interestingly, there is no mention of Mr. Covington in the present version of that article.Wasp14 (talk) 19:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

:The book I linked to (Encyclopedia of White Power: A Sourcebook on the Radical Racist Right) was published by Rowman & Littlefield, which is a reliable publisher, and the two articles that I linked to were published by the Associated Press. I hadn't noticed the book Codename Greenkil, but now that you point it out, [http://books.google.com/books?id=kbKJU3e59MsC&q=covington it does contain significant coverage] of Covington--and the University of Georgia Press is a highly reliable publisher. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

OK I mistakenly thought your google books link was a link to the google books page of "Codename Greenkil" which is used as a source in the Harold Covington article. In any case, both the book you did link to and "Codename Greenkil" are obscure texts published by universities. The "Encyclopedia of White Power: A Sourcebook on the Radical Racist Right" is part of a series of books about "radicals" by Jeffrey Kaplan, which were the only things he ever wrote. He gives a brief 15 page mention of Harold Covington out of a 591 page book. Elizabeth Wheaton, who was involved in far-left politics in the 1970's and 80's, wrote Codename Greenkil, and the only other things she ever wrote were a couple biographies of feminists. In Codename Greenkil, Wheaton even says Covington only had a few followers. If these 2 obscure books and a couple of short wire service mentions in small town newspapers are the best sources for Mr. Covington, that's not much. On the Harold Covington talk page, someone claiming to be Harold Covington says he is not notable and should be deleted.Wasp14 (talk) 21:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

::15 pages is not brief (unless they're very small pages or in very large type). Or at least, it qualifies as an item of significant coverage - it's not just a passing mention. Equally, notability requires significant coverage to be in multiple independent reliable sources; it doesn't require the sources to be notable in and of themselves. How much else the authors in question published, is not really relevant. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• Keep Per WP:BASIC: A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. The references already in the article clearly demonstrate that the subject meets this criterion, and the rest of the deletion rationale is not a valid reason for deletion. VQuakr (talk) 04:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
• Keep If there's an issue with a sockpuppet, please report him. But, this article meets notability requirements, so no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater (gawd, that expression is awful, isn't it??) JoelWhy?(talk) 12:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't start the issue of sock puppetry. I mention it because of the following - 18:33, 30 July 2011 Courcelles (talk | contribs) protected Harold Covington‎ [edit=autoconfirmed] (indefinite) (Persistent sock puppetry) So it has already been determined that the article is constantly vandalized and sock puppetted and has been semi-protected. Wasp14 (talk) 00:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

: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.