Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samuel Westrop

:{{la|Samuel Westrop}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Samuel_Westrop Stats])

:({{Find sources|Samuel Westrop}})

(Disputed PROD, nominated for PROD by someone else) I have nominated this article for deletion as it does not meet our notability guidelines, nor does it explain the notability of the subject. This fails WP:BASIC in that the subject has not "been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject There aren't any reliable secondary sources that discuss this person, particularly any that are independent of the subject. All the sources I can find from a quick google search seem to be from non-independent sources (ie his facebook page or the pages of his organisations.) The subject of the article has not been the subject of significant coverage in third-party reliable sources and is unlikely to be in the foreseeable future. The one article discussing the subject as an individual, [http://www.jewishtelegraph.com/prof_129.html here] is linked to the organisation that the subject promotes. As it is and after some searching I don't think this article meets the criteria for inclusion at this time. He may do in the future, but not at the moment. Woody (talk) 17:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

::Woody, thanks for notifying me about this, I understand your concern about the notability of the person discussed. Considering someone as "notable" can often be a subjective thing, and so after doing my research about Westrop I'm now convinced there's no doubt this article should stay. First, as written in the article, he's the co-founder and director of the Institute for Middle Eastern Democracy, the organisation Stand for Peace, a former director of the British Israel Coalition and a fellow at Gatestone Institute, and has also written for Algemeiner Journal, International Business Times, and more. Just this by itself is quite extraordinary I'd say, and so if we were to remove his article, thousands of other much less important ones will have to be deleted as well. Regarding your second concern - besides the clearly reliable sources cited in the article, some of which he was the author of - here are some secondary sources, some are completely independent of the subject: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoUneU8p20g him taking a part in a BBC show], him mentioned [http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/headtohead/2013/06/201361310127499186.html here] and [http://blogs.jpost.com/content/peter-jenkins-and-bloodthirsty-jews here], a short profile information about him [http://www.algemeiner.com/author/sam-westrop/ here], [http://www.nouse.co.uk/2010/02/15/samuel-westrop/ here] and [http://theatheistconservative.com/tag/sam-westrop/ here], and another interview with him on Sun news - [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHWn59OGlOM here]. He's also the subject of [http://www.juif.org/go-blogs-42364.php this French article]. I'm sure there're plenty more, but need I say more? Shalom11111 (talk) 18:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

:::Need you say more, well, to be honest, yes. The organisations that you talk about are all organisations that don't yet have WIkipedia articles so to say that he has been a part of them is not indicative of notability. I've been a member of several institutes, it doesn't make me notable. There are many thousands of people who have written articles for online journals but again, that does not indicate notability. I refer back to WP:BASIC in that he has not "been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. The links you provide do not provide evidence of notability. Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. The [http://www.algemeiner.com/author/sam-westrop/ algemeiner link] above just shows that he has worked for that journal, the jpost link is a blog, the [http://www.nouse.co.uk/2010/02/15/samuel-westrop/ nouse link] is a candidate statement for a uni election, the [http://theatheistconservative.com/tag/sam-westrop/ atheist Conservative link] is one of the subjects blogs/pages and the Sun News youtube video only serves to show that he has been interviewed by a cable news organisation to speak on a subject. You have not shown that he meets WP:BASIC. He is an online blogger and spokesperson for a number of small, non-notable by themselves organisations. As for your opening argument, see Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, feel free to nominate those articles for deletion. Woody (talk) 20:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

::::Your time and the information you provided is much appreciated and helpful. I agree with you to a certain extent about what you said, but still think he's just notable enough to have an article in the English wikipedia. You yourself said that because the organizations he's a part of don't have wikipedia articles, he's not noteworthy to have his own. But he is a fellow at Gatestone Institute - as written and sourced in the article - which does have an article. An activist, founder, editor, appeared in major news network and more, no harm will be made if his article stays. Regarding "other stuff exists", I know that two wrongs don't make a right, but this isn't the case here, briefly look for example at these people I easily and randomly searched and found: Thomas Apple, Ralph Brennan, and Luis Maria Simón. Do they have any secondary and tertiary sources or coverage in third-party reliable sources? Probably not, but Westrop does, even if just a little, he still does. I mean, what else can I say, maybe we need more people's opinions on the matter here. Shalom11111 (talk) 22:21, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

:::::I agree this isn't a two-way discussion, I look forward to further opinions on this. I was making a generalised statement about the organisations in his article and listed in the various blog posts by the subject. The Gatestone Institute is a one-year-old think-tank, hardly enough to merit claims to notability. You are welcome to try and improve those articles or delete them. I might go over there and look at those articles and sources when I get the chance. When we are dealing with BLPs, particularly those of relatively unknown subjects, we should err on the side of caution. Woody (talk) 22:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

::::::I must say that the fact you're the only one proposing and in favor of the deletion of this article isn't coincidental at all and makes a lot of sense. The article has existed for weeks now, was successfully reviewed by an authorized articles checker immediately after, has been edited by about 10 different users and read by probably many more - and not even a single one of them doubted the notability of this man. I saw you edited it and cleaned up some stuff, thanks (by the way, the word "organization" with a "z" is American style, whereas "organisation" with "S" is British English so both ways are correct). In short - Westrop does meet all the requirements needed for a person to have an article, even if some of them are minimal. There's no much more I can say about this anymore.. Shalom11111 (talk) 08:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

:::::::"Isn't coincidental at all and makes a lot of sense"? I don't follow your logic, what are you implying? I can't speak for other editors but they may have glanced at the article, saw a few links but didn't realise that most of those links were blog or links to the organisation of the subject. I reiterate that this fails WP:BASIC. This AFD hasn't been open twelve hours which is why it is only the article creator and the nominator who have discussed it. I'm aware about organisation, I was putting the article into British English as it is a British subject. (Same goes for the dates). Let's see what others think about the strength of the arguments. Woody (talk) 09:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

::::::::I see, thanks. Sorry if I wasn't clear, I was implying that I think you nominating this article for deletion was an act of goodwill, but in light of what I pointed out, there's no general agreement about what you're saying - that he's not notable enough. Otherwise, someone would've suggested or proposed his deletion already, or at least supported you here in your argument. And just because some or most of those links may don't meet basic criteria standards, doesn't contradict the fact that there're a few that clearly do, and that's what matters. As I said before, this issue isn't only right or wrong because it's a little subjective, and for the most part I disagree with you however I respect your opinion. Shalom11111 (talk) 12:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• Delete My first impression was Keep but looking at the sources more closely and following the discussion above leaning to Delete. The topic is still evolving and very well could tip to notable if he has more mainstream press exposure, which will happen organically as his career progresses (or not). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:33, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
• Keep My position is clearly stated above. Please, there's no need to be so picky about this specific article. Wikipedia has much more serious issues for us to spend our time on. Shalom11111 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
• Probably delete -- Until I have some idea what the two organisations he has founded are and that either of them (both redlinks) is notable, I find it hard to accept that their founder is notable, when he seems to have done little else. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:08, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

::You guys keep referring to these two organizations, so if the fact that they're currently redlinks bothers you, ignore it and look at all the other things. Again, he's a frequent author/editor in major news networks, appeared in the radio and in TV interviews, and was even a director of the (blue-marked) Gatestone Institute. Has been the subject of several articles, and is undoubtedly more notable than thousands of other people on Wikipedia. It's been 7 days and there's no consensus, shouldn't the discussion be over and the deletion dismissed? Thanks, Shalom11111 (talk) 08:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

:::I'm not having a circular discussion with you here, my responses to your comment can be seen in the discussion at the top. As for when and how this will be closed , it is up to the closing admin. It might be relisted to generate further discussion or it might be closed. Personally I would say there is consensus to delete but remember it is on the strength of the argument based in policy not on counting votes (even if you did count "votes" it is 3 against the article creator for delete, and given it is a BLP of an unknown person sways it further in favour in delete. Woody (talk) 11:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

:::: "the (blue-marked) Gatestone Institute." (Shalom11111) The color might change in the near future. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:35, 12 September 2013 (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.