Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Monaghan

: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. There isn't strong agreement on whether the sources in this article establish notability, both sides of the argument have valid points and neither side is overwhelming. Also, the strange nature of this AfD (sockpuppet nominator, botched relist) makes it more difficult to close one way or another. For this reason, there is no prejudice against speedy renomination. -ScottywongUser talk:Scottywong 16:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

=[[Jeff Monaghan]]=

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

:({{Find sources|Jeff Monaghan}})

The page contains only information gathered from newspaper sites. The content is over 5yrs old; it reads simply as an old newspaper story. Fedgetrashmore (talk) 10:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment. Well... newspaper sources are typically considered to be reliable sources that can help show notability and to be honest, there shouldn't really be anything in here that isn't sourced by one thing or another. We also don't delete something because it's old news. If someone or something achieves notability per Wikipedia guidelines, that notability does not go away over time. (Unless the standards tighten up and they don't meet the new guidelines, that is.) I cleaned the article up a little and took out a few things, but I'm more worried that this didn't get enough coverage to count as notable. I'll see what else I can find or if this can be mentioned somewhere else on Wikipedia with this name as a redirect. It's big enough that it got quite a bit of coverage, but not enough to where it clearly isn't just a case of WP:ONEEVENT.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

::I agree with the WP:ONEEVENT not making the person notable; however, from the brief research I did I see that he is an outspoken activist. The arrest would be an event surrounding his activism and his activism is what I believe would make him notable (not that every activist deserves a Wikipedia, but the most notable ones that get arrested for what he did probably do). Just a thought....I'm moving on. --Morning277 (talk) 14:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep - The claim of notability is in the article and supported by citations. Regardless of the citations being in print or online, they are still citations. The notion that the article should be deleted based on the citations being from newspapers is rediculous. Google the name followed by "arrest" and there are plenty of online sources. Just a note to Fedgetrashmore - it is always good to check out sources to see if they exist prior to making a Rfd. --Morning277 (talk) 14:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete - this article is precisely what should be avoided when we talk aboutWP:ONEEVENT. If you read any of those news links, th arrest had nothing to do with activism, it was only after the arrest that the media got wind of those associations. Moreover, the activism was hardly national news... it relates to a small local bookstore. How can this be considered as notoriety? Delete. --Fedgetrashmore]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fedgetrashmore (talk • contribs) 13:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC) User has already !voted--v/r - TP 18:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete - agree with the above. This seems to be a promotional page for a relatively unknown person. If a page was created for every activist who got arrested, we'd end up with a lot of useless clutter. Delete. --Archie888 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archie888 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC) — Archie888 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

::Note The above comment has been struck out, as the user has been determined to be the same person as the nominator: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Archie888. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

::Note The above comment has been struck out, as the user has been determined to be the same person as the nominator: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Archie888. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Note To Administrator - I do not care about the article as I only came here to vote on AfD; however, nominator is a new user and there are 2 back to back delete votes from new users that were created back to back. --Morning277 (talk) 15:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

::Note: I created a sockpuppet investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Archie888, based on what I see as evidence of sock-puppetry with Archie888, Fedgetrashmore, and 99.234.8.152. Anyone may comment there if they are interested. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

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

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

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

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - TP 18:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete on the merits. Clearly not enough coverage to support the biography of a living person. Subject is only notable for one event in his life. The event itself meets no section of WP:EVENT. BusterD (talk) 14:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Note to closer Something went wrong with the relist of this discussion, it is not currently listed in a deletion log. I am adding it to today's log. Monty845 14:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:CRIME, and WP:BLPCRIME. Subject is notable for only one event: being arrested for a crime that he was never charged or convicted of. I don't believe the "person of interest" and his punk rock band are at all notable, and the "Awards" section doesn't have any citations, and the single award doesn't seem notable either. If the crime (the leaking of government plans) was notable (doubtful), it should have an article, but the article should be about the crime - not the person who is only notable for being arrested and released the same day. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:GNG. Agree with User:Morning277. The citations are reliable for the article. Unlike the US, in Canada we have no laws provincially (as far as I know) or federally protecting "whistle blowers". Further, the fact that the RCMP was investigating him in 2008 is significant. Argolin (talk) 03:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep  Here is another ref:

:*{{cite newspaper

| url = http://www.thestar.com/news/article/212842--the-anarchist-and-the-leak

| title = The anarchist and the leak

| newspaper = The Star

| location = Toronto

| author = Allan Woods (Ottawa Bureau)

| quote = The man arrested for allegedly leaking the Conservative government's environmental plan was a temporary employee...a drummer in a punk band that sings an angry screed against the Prime Minister and the 'rise of the right.'

| accessdate = 2012-07-15

}} This is a close call.  Of course the event passes WP:GNG, but is it a forgettable WP:NOT routine event or is this a part of Canadian history?  There is a problem here in not knowing the person's full name, but it would be nice if the next time this is nominated the editor has more than ten edits total.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:30, 16 July 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.