Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John de Nugent (2nd nomination)

:{{la|John de Nugent}} ([{{fullurl:John de Nugent|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John de Nugent (2nd nomination)}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

AFD closed three days ago and article deleted as advertising. This still seems like a biography that is so overly filled with personal detail as to constitute advocacy for the subject. Furthermore, I checked one reference (to the New York Times) and it didn't seem to actually discuss the subject. Finally, I doubt the notability of someone whose biggest claim to fame is finishing third in a Congressional primary in 1990. In any case, I think this would benefit from a full 7 day discussion. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as recreation of deleted material. Nothing's really changed in 3 days. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 18:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

As I posted in the article's talk page...

I read the logs and entries objecting to my article. On "notability," the man campaigned and nearly won for US Congress in 1990 on an openly racist ticket, and has vowed to run again. CBS, NBC, ABC, the Washington Post, the London Times, BBC-TV, and other major media gave him important coverage recently. De Nugent is very prominent among white nationalists, and may run for president in 2012. Race and racism is still notable today.

Google has de Nugent at 1.5 million hits -- off and on, bizarrely -- and Bing, the new Microsoft search engine, has "John de Nugent" at 2.3 million hits.

So he is notable.

Is the article unambiguous advertising? I find it hard to imagine that an article detailing a man's encounter with child molesters, suicide attempt, divorces, expulsion from the most prominent website in his racist movement, and financial travails is "advertising," unless it is negative advertising against him. Still, I have attempted to make this article as neutral as possible, and welcome any attempts to further this goal.

I personally contacted De Nugent about the photo copyright issue and he has informed me that he sent photo copyright permissions to Wikipedia, on July 17, 2009, and Wikipedia has failed to acknowledge that email and send him a ticket number. He has agreed to release his photos under the Creative Commons Share-Alike License. The man obviously has the copyright on his own childhood picture, on photos of his television coverage that he purchased from a Nashville TV video service for $500, and for the logo of his own "Solutrean" organization.

I am sure that the new version of my article meets any good-faith objections.BobKostro (talk) 19:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

:The television coverage that he purchased from a Nashville TV video service for $500 is meaningless, the copyright is still owned by the television station and therefore can not be used. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 21:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete:G4. In addition, all available coverage seems to fall under WP:ONEEVENT (an interviewed associate of a WP:ONEEVENT-notable shooter). No Google News results for [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?um=1&ned=us&hl=en&num=50&q=%22John+de+Nugent%22+Congress&cf=all "John de Nugent" Congress]. Major WP:BLP concerns: none of the 62 references appear to be valid and the article is obviously written by a WP:COI editor. — Rankiri (talk) 22:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

:*Delete. Thanks to Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's machete-wielding skills G4 no longer applies but I'm still not convinced that the subject is sufficiently notable to pass WP:BIO — Rankiri (talk) 19:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as G4, no better than the previous version. Probably salt as well. DGG (talk) 03:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. G4. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Weakest possible keep. I've taken a machete to the article and removed everything that wasn't appropriate for a BLP, which was about 99% of the article. Most of the text regarding his political opinions and positions was self-sourced, and self-serving in that it presented his advocacy rather than simply identifying his positions; much of it was entangled with BLP violations concerning other individuals. The referencing style in the article was beyond bizarre; if the opening paragraph had identified the subject as the love child of Eddie Stanky and Eleanor Roosevelt, born on Neptune, it might well have been referenced to a boxscore of a game in which Stanky played, a photo of Eleanor Roosevelt, and an astronomical site discussing Neptune. Many sections were either unsourced or referenced in this idiosyncratic manner. Nugent may not deserve the press coverage he receives (weirdly, the most reliable coverage he received is in multiple articles regarding the Rhode Island accent silliness), but there appears to be just enough coverage linking him to another violent incident at the Holocaust Museum to potentially make him notable enough for Wikipedia. That said, he is generally not notable for his political opinions, and they shouldn't be presented in the article except as related to those incidents. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - being the penpal of a murderer is not sufficient for notability. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 22:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - no claim / evidence of notability. -shirulashem^(talk) 01:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Per Allstar (first nom), DGG and Bigdaddy. -->David Shankbone 20:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete but this AfD needs to run the full length. G4 doesn't apply as the other AfD was closed after 3 days when the article was speedy deleted. The problem here is the lack of independent reliable sources showing notability, as most of what's out there is fails on one count or the other. I basically agree with HW about the article; I just disagree that what's left is enough for a standalone article. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:00, 28 July 2009 (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.