Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joel Weiner

{{Delrevafd|date=2010 April 27}}

: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. I have closed this early because it is starting to become disruptive. The subject is clearly not notable for their own article; the only issue is whether they should be mentioned in other articles, which is an editorial decision. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

=[[Joel Weiner]]=

:{{la|Joel Weiner}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joel Weiner}}|2=AfD statistics}})

:({{findsources|Joel Weiner}})

Per the PROD-tag which was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joel_Weiner&diff=356800727&oldid=356798296 deleted] without explanation. It read, With sources including Facebook and YouTube, this BLP is about a person essentially only notable for one event (two distinctly related events, at a stretch), and uses a copyrighted image. ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 18:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete Asking one question on a regularly broadcast current affairs program doesn't even begin to fulfill even the vaguest of the general notability guidelines, let alone anything relating to WP:BIO. The episode itself is not notable for a separate article, so neither should an individual whose only claim to notability is an appearance in that episode. If his questioning is really that notable, a brief note could be made on the Question Time artcle page, but even this does not exist with the link in the article pointing to Prime Minister's Questions instead, though his contribution could be placed on the United Kingdom general election debates, 2010 page, though I note no other questions have been deemed notable for inclusion in that article to date. Fenix down (talk) 19:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

:*Comment My point made above was edited by another user who indicated that the Question_Time_British_National_Party_controversy article mentioned this event. I have reverted this, as I can see no evidence of this. Joel Weiner is not mentioned even tangentially and his specific question is not listed either. I feel this adds further weight to the idea that his contribution is not in itself inherently notable. I'm happy to remove this comment if it is shown I have overlooked a reference, or if he was mentioned in an earlier version of the article. It appears that later comments have confirmed that his "question" was simply an interruption. Granted one that may have drawn momentary attention to him, but not the sort that would warrant a wiki article. Fenix down (talk) 12:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

:: I had crossed that out, and I misunderstood your comment. To clarify, the larger event has an article at Question_Time_British_National_Party_controversy. Mr. Weiner's involvement is not noted in that larger article. As I noted in my deletion argument, this absense gives further proof as to his unnotability. RJ (talk) 13:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete Two swallows don't make a summer, and two questions asked on TV programmes don't make a person notable, nor need every subject of a Facebook page be documented in an encyclopedia. We should apply the principles and spirit of Wikipedia:BLP1E. It's also noticeable that this article and its talk page have become the targets of puerile vandalism and abuse, directed against its subject and against the proposal to delete the article. NebY (talk) 17:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC) Copied from Talk:Joel Weiner where I believe it was posted in error. Fenix down (talk) 19:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - I was an original reviewer who proposed deletion on Joel Weiner. At that point, I only noted the one event and cited WP:BLP1E. Though as I now understand Mr. Weiner has two events to his name, I still feel the article should be deleted for the same reason. Per the WP:BLP1E guideline, Mr. Weiner would be better included as a sub-section in each event article if his participation in the event was notable enough. It is interesting to note that Mr. Weiner is not referred to in the articles Question_Time_British_National_Party_controversy or United_Kingdom_general_election_debates,_2010 suggesting his participation was not notable. Mr. Weiner is unlikely to be a prominent figure in the future. If he has another event to his name, I would reconsider. RJ (talk) 20:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
  • By the way, does anyone know how Mr. Weiner was able to ask the questions in both events? Who chose him? RJ (talk) 20:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Objection @RJ He effectively butted in for the Question Time question, but for the First Election Debate, he was one of the select few, who were chosen from outside the thirty mile radius, likely because they wanted his question asked. I would take you up on your point that he "is unlikely to be a prominent figure in the future." These appearances were not completely down to chance, he had taken the initiative to write in and apply to these events, presumably more that he didn't get to attend. It is likely just a matter of time before he makes another appearance again and when so, there will already be a page on him to add to, rather than having a new page from scratch because RJ reconsidered. Let this article be; how many swallows do we need for summer to be called summer? --A930913 (talk) 22:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC) — A930913 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. {{ #if: | The preceding unsigned comment was added at {{{2}}} (UTC).}}
  • : Another objection WP:BASIC: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]" As I noted in the article discussion, "He has received much media coverage, those newspapers in the article, as well as many other newspapers and BBC news (Channel One) more than once." I also invoke WP:ENT, clause 2 which states "Has a large fan base or a significant 'cult' following." The many groups about him, with some 11,000+ fans on facebook surely fulfils this criterion. For these reasons, I believe I have proven beyond doubt that this person is of notability. Thank you. --A930913 (talk) 10:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC) — A930913 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. {{ #if: | The preceding unsigned comment was added at {{{2}}} (UTC).}}

::: We should userfy the article, so if Mr. Weiner does somehow reach notability, we would not have to start over from scratch. At some point if he keeps asking questions or otherwise is politically engaged, Mr. Weiner would acquire more than his current fleeting notability. I am still for deletion because wikipedia is not a crystal ball. A930913 suggests "It is likely just a matter of time before he makes another appearance again." We cannot count on this and should not predict notability. RJ (talk) 15:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

::::Oh, God no. It should be deleted, and can be undeleted if necessary. Userfying will just make it a target for the disgusting vandalism that's been going on so far. ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 21:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

:Both events attracted attention from the press, as opposed to what Chris said. One notable example for the latter event was in The Daily Telegraph. This is therefore clearly not a case of one event. As for The vandalism, - none of which since the semi lock - in previous instances there was only a very short period of time before I or a few others corrected it. I don't mind clearing up the vandalism - what would Wikipedia be if any page that got vandalised was deleted? --A930913 (talk) 09:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC) — A930913 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. {{ #if: | The preceding unsigned comment was added at {{{2}}} (UTC).}}

  • :It might help if you can show what the coverage of the latter event was - the only Telegraph article I can see relates to the former appearance. Bear in mind, however, Wikipedia is not a news source, and Wikipedia is not the place for participants in blow-by-blow accounts of ongoing news stories. If Joel Weiner continues to get media coverage long after these TV appearances, there might be a case for notability, but we're not there yet. Thanks for your offer of keeping an eye out for vandalism, but unfortunately people disappear from Wikipedia all the time and leave articles unattended. Vandalism that affects real people is a serious problem on Wikipedia, and if the person in question isn't notable, the most effective way to guard the article from vandalism is to not have it at all. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

:::http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/election/article-1266377/Return-schoolboy-inquisitor-Jewish-youngster-confronted-Nick-Griffin-Question-Time-demands-answers-leaders.html

:::http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/30538/griffins-question-time-inquisitor-now-takes-party-leaders-itv-debate

::: to name some more (online articles.) Much of the reason that the page was getting vandalised was because many people are spamming the article link over the web due to the controversy of the deletion. If we let the dust settle, so should the vandalism. A930913 (talk) 21:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC) — A930913 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. {{ #if: | The preceding unsigned comment was added at {{{2}}} (UTC).}}

:::: Better than nothing, but it's clear from these articles that he's only been written about because of his connection to the original event. Whilst we don't have a policy on people notable for two events, when the coverage in the second event is minor and has directly arisen from the first event, I think we should still follow WP:BIO1E. As for vandalism, I have previously had my userpage vandalised for no apparent reason, so unfortunately "letting the dust settle" isn't a safeguard. (Okay, we don't delete content as a pre-emptive move against possible future vandalism, but this is one of the good reasons why we delete content that doesn't meet notability.) Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

  • :Delete— Not yet notable. Provokes vandalism. Will be forgotten before the General Election is over. If we included as "notable" everything or everyone with a facebook fan-base which was then picked up by the media, Wikipedia would be twice the size it is now. Ridiculous.XVI Chancer (talk) 19:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

:::See above regarding vandalism. Two options then, a. start writing up everyone with large fan base or b. get the Wikipedia guidelines changed. A930913 (talk) 21:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC) — A930913 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. {{ #if: | The preceding unsigned comment was added at {{{2}}} (UTC).}}

  • Delete Doesn't meet WP:BIO. Not everyone who appears on TV and has Facebook Fans needs an encyclopedia article. --Pontificalibus (talk) 22:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

:Does meet WP:BASIC, the first section of WP:BIO as pointed out above. --A930913 (talk) 00:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC) — A930913 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. {{ #if: | The preceding unsigned comment was added at {{{2}}} (UTC).}}

::Can you stop hectoringn everyone, please, A930913? ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 05:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

:::Comment I agree with Treasury Tag, the purpose of your account seems solely to defend this article, especially given your lack of edits anywhere else and your comments here: User_talk:Yehudi92#I_Object. The fact of the matter is that the subject does not necessarily meet WP:BASIC, as the criteria clearly indicate that, if the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. Although his questions have been reported in national newspapers, the coverage has not been particularly widespread, and the articles themselves are really rather short and they are short because there really isn't much to say about the incident. All that has happened is that a surprisingly young individual has asked a couple of slightly awkward questions. There has been no knock on effect of these questions being asked in the wider political sphere, they were merely a couple of moments of passing interest and nothing more and as such. Were he to become a serial questioner on such programmes, I could see that he might become notable, simply for asking questions, but asking two qustions which have had no real impact (the fact that the creators of the Question Time BNP Controversy article didn't include a reference to this could be seen as indicative of its notability within the specific event) does not appear enough to fulfill WP:BASIC, therefore not enough to fulfill WP:BIO, since the lack of fallout from these questions means that he has not made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.

:::WP:SBST would seem to knock this arguement on the head anyway, since it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability and all we have here is two very short bursts of news about a single topic (British Politics). Fenix down (talk) 09:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

::::To respond to A930913, I regard the cited coverage as trivial. --Pontificalibus (talk) 11:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

:::::To respond to Pontificaibus, I regard the cited coverage as multiple independent sources. --A930913 (talk) 13:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC) — A930913 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. {{ #if: | The preceding unsigned comment was added at {{{2}}} (UTC).}}

::::"more than just a short burst" fulfilled by, in your own words, "two very short bursts" --A930913 (talk) 13:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC) — A930913 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. {{ #if: | The preceding unsigned comment was added at {{{2}}} (UTC).}}

  • Comment: In response to the suggestion that these events will soon be forgotten, perhaps deletions should be held off until at least after the general election when that can be determined. Either way, in accordance with Wikipedia:BLP1E, shouldn't this article be merged with those for Question time and the election debate? Yehudi92 (talk) 12:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

:*Comment but that's not how wikipedia works, see WP:BALL. If something, though I must confess i struggle to imagine what, suddenly makes the subject notable following the forthcoming general election, then an article would be appropriate. However, what is not appropriate is to create articles in anticipation of notability, which I believe has been discussed above. Deleted articles can be recovered in such circumstances. Fenix down (talk) 12:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

::*Comment That still does not deal with the issue of merging the article though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yehudi92 (talk • contribs) 13:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

:::'Comment I don't believe there is any consensus for a merge. There is only one user who tentatively suggests it. I feel that there is far too much information in this article for it to be usefully merged. I would have no problem with a very brief comment in the Question time and election debates articles in principle, but I note that the election debates article does not deal with specific questions asked, which might lead to the article being skewed if Joel Weiner's question is mentioned on its own. The Question Time question was not an official question, but an interruption. I'm not sure how you would therefore include it satisfactorily in the article, but I wouldn't object in principle. However, in both instances, since there has been zero political repurcussions from either question, I'm not sure how it could be supported as relevant in either article. Fenix down (talk) 18:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

:::: I suggested a merge because, although Joel Weiner is currently a long way from a stand-alone article, his question to Nick Griffin has gone down as the iconic moment in the mauling he received from the audience, and the amount of media attention he got after that backs this up. It would be reasonable to include some examples of the comments made to Nick Griffin that evening, and if so Joel's comments would be a good one to pick. I agree that I don't see a reason for Joel Weiner's contribution to the election debate getting any special attention though. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

  1. Delete I don't think there's anything useful to merge into the parent article either. WP:BLP1E. I'm not against a redirect being recreated. Aiken ♫ 17:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

:: The more likely merger candidate is the Question_Time_British_National_Party_controversy article. I am against mentioning Mr. Weiner in the United Kingdom general election debates, 2010. Chris Neville-Smith seems to suggest Mr. Weiner had a notable moment during the Question Time episode. RJ (talk) 18:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete - A kid who posed a question to a politician? Seriously? WP:ONEEVENT, if that, to a T. Tarc (talk) 19:19, 22 April 2010 (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.