Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Collins (journalist)

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. Spartaz Humbug! 07:29, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Collins (journalist)

Steve Collins (journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has already been deleted in the past for notability issues. A user who could be related to the subject recreated the page. The page features content that is unsourced. If you would like, please read through all the discussions under the votes on this page before casting a vote. There are 10 citations in total. Nearly half of them are mirrors of the other half. The subject is noted in detail for one event. Some of the citations are either directly or indirectly associated with the subject or the creator of the article. The author and biggest contributor of this article is using another account to make unsourced edits. Of the handful of original citations, Collins is noted either in passing, inconsequentially or fully but with little notability. All Wikipedia subjects are covered in multiple sources, but not all people covered in multiple sources are subjects on Wikipedia. Also struggles to maintain WP:ANYBIO, WP:BASIC, and looks like Wikipedia:Namechecking. This is scrapping the bottom of the barrel to make an article. CamdenEric (talk) 22:28, 19 March 2018 (UTC)— CamdenEric (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 19:29, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 14:06, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 14:06, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 14:06, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as he has coverage in reliable sources and passes WP:GNG. I noticed you have only contributed to the Stephen Collins actor article who is known for the role of Eric Camden the same as your username and have prodded or AFD two articles about people with similar names presumably to raise the search engine profile of Stephen Collins. Atlantic306 (talk)

AFD'ing similar articles does not raise the search engine profile of subjects. And yes, I do edit the Stephen Collins article, thats correct. And yes, I did nominate similarly named article that I felt were not notable. We're talking about Steve Collins not Stephen Collins. CamdenEric (talk) 16:50, 18 March 2018 (UTC) — CamdenEric (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 19:29, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources such as those already cited in the entry. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:01, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He does not pass WP:GNG and when you click on the cites there is hardly substantial coverage. As the nominator I would like to quote WP:GNG (the policy ref'd by the preceding editor): "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." There has not been "significant coverage"; the most cited source is from the Sun Journal itself i.e. the paper he works for. I would also like to lay out the following reasons for deletion:
  • The subject is only mentioned in brief passing in the second, third, fifth, eighth, and ninth citations. There are only 10 citations in total and many are just mirror references.
  • For the one event he is profiled on, all the sources fall under a violation of WP:SPIP, and Wikipedia:Party and person. Moreover, the fact that it is one event violates WP:SINGLEEVENT.
  • One might argue that he has been noted for more than one event ... really? The "[http://www.wnd.com/2016/01/teaching-young-journalists-old-school-ethics/| other event]" was a puff piece on his work with a small non profit in his home town. Not. Notable.
  • The biggest contributor to the article is someone named "Kiernanmc". Click on their profile and you find a link to a Facebook account. The Facebook account belongs to someone named with the same last name as the subject of this article. Whoever created this article (and did most of the editing) is related to the subject in some way. Clear violations of WP:YOURSELF and WP:NPV.
  • Another contributor, "Kingmanatee" wrote the following: "Added Collins' birth date." with an edit noting February 21, 1961 as the subject's birthday. How could this editor possibly know Steve Collins' birthday when that information can not be found online? There are no sources in existence that note the subject's birthday and yet this editor magically knew his birthday? See WP:SOSP. CamdenEric (talk) 16:45, 18 March 2018 (UTC) — CamdenEric (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 19:29, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Collins' birthday is displayed on his Facebook profile, and is accessible to any internet user. I'll admit it's not properly sourced, but including publicly available information is hardly a sign of sock-puppetry.Kingmanatee (talk) 14:44, 20 March 2018 (UTC) Blocked sock. CamdenEric (talk) 21:59, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The information was not available online nor was it publicly available on the date it was added. Secondly, please keep your comments on the bottom, most recent section, so as to not confuse the line of dialogue here. CamdenEric (talk) 19:54, 20 March 2018 (UTC)— CamdenEric (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 19:29, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominators do not vote, the nomination statement counts as the delete vote Atlantic306 (talk) 19:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, just saw that. Thanks for catching that. CamdenEric (talk) 20:00, 18 March 2018 (UTC)— CamdenEric (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 19:29, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That just isn't accurate. The sources cover this jourbalist very substantially for a variety of events. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:17, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? This is the article: Steve Collins (journalist). There are 10 sources. Half of them are mirrors. Only two speak in depth about him and only about one event. Facts are facts. There are only 10 sources to look at here .. not much to hide behind. Click on them. I just checked back on the article and half of every single citation on the article is for one sentence. CamdenEric (talk) 20:11, 18 March 2018 (UTC)— CamdenEric (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 19:29, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Seems to pass WP:GNG just fine."?? There are 5 sections of General notability guideline. This subject fails three (e.g. 'Significant coverage', 'Sources' and 'Presumed'). How is that "just fine"? And to your snowball comment, see: Wikipedia:Snowball clause#A cautionary note. CamdenEric (talk) 22:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)— CamdenEric (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 19:29, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"This article was written by someone related to the subject" Where and what is your evidence for such an accusation? Which editor who has edited the article are you referring to, CamdenEric? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:17, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See, this is what troubles me. I explained why just sentences above. Please look through the article, read it, take a look at the cites... genuinely evaluate it. Please read the entire discussion on this talk page before saying things like a "strong keep Seems to pass WP:GNG just fine." Your question shows me that you're not reading this discussion. Here is what I said above, copy and pasted:
The biggest contributor to the article is someone named "Kiernanmc". Click on their profile and you find a link to a Facebook account. The Facebook account belongs to someone with the same last name as the subject: Majerous-Collins. Whoever created this article (and did most of the editing) is related to the subject in some way. Clear violations of WP:YOURSELF and WP:NPV.
Another contributor, "Kingmanatee" wrote the following: "Added Collins' birth date." with an edit noting February 21, 1961 as the subject's birthday. How could this editor possibly know Steve Collins' birthday when that information can not be found online? There are no sources in existence that note the subject's birthday and yet this editor magically knew his birthday? See Wikipedia:Signs of sock puppetry. CamdenEric (talk) 21:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC)— CamdenEric (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 19:29, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
CamdenEric, you need to stop, now - stop with the threats: "...I've got my eyes peeled for any "surprise contributions" to this discussion and vote"; and with the accusations of sockpuppetry: "Also as a note to the editor using multiple accounts...See Wikipedia:Signs of sock puppetry". If you think both accounts belong to the same person, file an SPI (make sure you have plenty of evidence when you do), but don't make accusations of socking in this forum - it's quite inappropriate. As are threats against other editors. See WP:THREATEN for more. As that article states,
"On Wikipedia, personal attacks are not tolerated. In particular, it is unacceptable to threaten another that some form of action that cannot or will not likely be taken will occur. When editors make threats like these, and the environment becomes hostile".
You've filed the AfD, there will either be a consensus to delete or keep, and that will be that. Please just let the process move forward rather than digging a hole and creating bad reputation for yourself. I'm sure there are other articles you can edit (that don't involve the name "Stephen Collins") and have fun doing it. That's what editing is supposed to be, after all: fun. I can't imagine that you're enjoying yourself stressing over all of this and I know you're not making things for fun for others with the threats, accusations, and bludgeoning you've been taking part in. Not to mention it's all disruptive behavior, which is strongly frowned upon. Go, have fun with Wikipedia, enjoy. Don't WP:BATTLE. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:07, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I did file an SPI. Secondly, sure my wording was not so nice.. I've removed it as courtesy to you, in spite of you cherry picking my post. Gunna have to disagree with you on all the policies you cited however. Noting socky activity is not a personal attack. Worry about your reputation and I'll worry about mine. Kay? I'm glad to see you're having fun on Wikipedia, but I take editing seriously and don't enjoy seeing articles on Wikipedia that go against Wikipedia's core content policies. What you call "disruptive editing", I like to call responsible care taking of articles. You jumped on this article without reading it or properly evaluating it. You astonishingly have still not changed your vote. I can't change your vote, but as the NOM, I can lay out the facts so others can view what you seemed to have missed. I'm not stressed at all. I like the actor, Stephen Collins. I like editing his page. If I want to edit other pages, I will. Its up to me. But before I return to Stephen Collins, I want to make sure fellow BLP are well-kept. I wish you all the best of editing and look forward to collaborating with you in the future. As an aside, I think you haven't bolded your vote, please do so your vote can be counted, I don't want other users to miss it. CamdenEric (talk) 01:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)— CamdenEric (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 19:29, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see you've bolded your vote now, thank you. CamdenEric (talk) 01:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doesnt satisfy WP:GNG as there is not significant coverage about the subject. There is a couple of passing mentions and the rest is relation to an event. Also looking to WP:JOURNALIST I cannot see they pass there either. This is not unusual for many many journalists - as they rarely get independant coverage about themselves unless they break something highly significant or win major awards. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:12, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Collins has had a notable career in American journalism, with stories about him running in the world's leading newspapers. I don't wish to question the motives of another editor, but it is interesting that this AFD was prompted by someone who seems to have an interest in elevating one Stephen/Steve Collins above others.Kingmanatee (talk) 14:48, 20 March 2018 (UTC) Blocked sock. CamdenEric (talk) 21:59, 22 March 2018 (UTC)— CamdenEric (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 19:29, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 05:28, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Their own pieces in major publications are, in and of themselves, significant coverage and evidence of notability, are they not? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:16, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Their own pieces are not independent and do not count. Wikipedia-notability depended on *others* having written about the subject. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:55, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You totally missed my point. Try thinking outside the policy box and more along the lines of WP:COMMONSENSE. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:12, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please just let the vote go forward, we don't need a repeat of what happened above. Not only do editors have all the info they need, they're smart enough to cast their own vote. I'm stepping away, please do so too. CamdenEric (talk) 03:45, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My comments aren't stopping the "vote" going forward. FYI: (1) We don't WP:VOTE in Wikipedia. Everything here is consensus. (2) Something that's discouraged strongly in Wikipedia is bludgeoning others on talkpages, especially when gaining consensus is being attempted. You would do well to understand that bludgeoning (as you have done repeatedly in this AfD) can lead to sanctions. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 21:43, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: does not meet WP:ANYBIO and significant RS coverage not found. Sourcing is either passing metions and / or hyper-local, insufficient to meet WP:SIGCOV. Promotionalism / COI is also a concern. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:36, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Schroeder/Adelson incident to Sheldon Adelson, and Delete. Lack of sufficient independent third party media coverage - fails WP:GNG. The notable info here would be better being flushed out and added to Adelson's article. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 21:54, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per User:SmokeyJoe. We need stuff written by independent parties about Collins to demonstrate notability. If we can't scrounge the sources for notability, how can we write a fair, impartial, high-quality biography? Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:22, 3 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Steve_Collins_(journalist)&oldid=1138795772"