Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vermin Supreme
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 keep. Spartaz Humbug! 17:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Vermin Supreme (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:NOT#NEWS; simple as. There is no evidence that this person is any more "notable" than any other joke candidate. Ironholds (talk) 16:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: fails WP:POLITICIAN.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Easily passes criterion 3 which states
Supreme has extensive reliable source coverage in a plethora of newsmedia. A simple google search reveals 40,200 results for the term "Vermin Supreme" and reliable source coverage includes CBS, NPR, the Concord Monitor and Boston.com among others. This individual clearly passes WP:POLITICIAN. Basket of Puppies 19:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 19:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: See WP:GYNOT for why Google search results are not a valid measure for establishing notability.--JayJasper (talk) 21:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. The majority of the citations referenced in the article make only brief mention of him (which is not "significant coverage"). The rest appear to treat the subject as little more than a novelty news item.--JayJasper (talk) 21:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Fails WP:POLITICIAN, but passes WP:BIO so it doesn't matter. The cited sources are poor, since most of them don't provide significant coverage of him, but the Boston Globe article is good and the little Concord Monitor interview is okay. There's also this in the Washington City Paper, this in the Bedford Journal, and other things on GNews. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If he fails WP:Politician, then what is he notable for?--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- He's notable for being a joke candidate and performance artist. Read #3 of POLITICIAN: unelected candidates who don't meet the previous guidelines can still be notable if they meet other notability criteria. That's not how the more specific types of biographical notability criteria work - WP:POLITICIAN not being satisfied doesn't negate WP:BASIC being satisfied. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's where we disagree. I don't see many articles where he is the subject, but rather a large number of mentions and/or blurbs in local papers.--William S. Saturn (talk) 01:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What is unsatisfactory about the Boston Globe and Washington City Paper? Those aren't local. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- After doing a quick search of the news archive, that's pretty much all I can find beyond mentions in blurbs and local newspapers. It was just a quick search so I may be wrong.--William S. Saturn (talk) 01:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that significant coverage in his local papers would not be enough, but those (Concord Monitor, the syndicated story in the Bedford Journal) added to the non-local sources establish notability. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- After doing a quick search of the news archive, that's pretty much all I can find beyond mentions in blurbs and local newspapers. It was just a quick search so I may be wrong.--William S. Saturn (talk) 01:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What is unsatisfactory about the Boston Globe and Washington City Paper? Those aren't local. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's where we disagree. I don't see many articles where he is the subject, but rather a large number of mentions and/or blurbs in local papers.--William S. Saturn (talk) 01:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- He's notable for being a joke candidate and performance artist. Read #3 of POLITICIAN: unelected candidates who don't meet the previous guidelines can still be notable if they meet other notability criteria. That's not how the more specific types of biographical notability criteria work - WP:POLITICIAN not being satisfied doesn't negate WP:BASIC being satisfied. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If he fails WP:Politician, then what is he notable for?--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per WP:POLITICIAN. Gage (talk) 03:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Loads of Google News hits. Consider as a piece of performance art/Americana rather than a politician. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- At another AFD, you made a good point. I made similar points at the AFD for Jonathon Sharkey (though now I see that Sharkey is notable as an individual), and for this individual below. Please read the comment, perhaps you will agree.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Clearly a notable performance artist, easily passes WP:Notability (people): [1][2][3][4][5][6] Qrsdogg (talk) 17:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Basket of Puppies (talk · contribs) would be advised to read WP:GHITS, which is important here because the majority of those Google links don't cover this person directly and in detail. It's not at all clear that there is sufficient depth of coverage here. ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 17:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Rather than separate articles for such non-notable candidates as Vermin Supreme, Ole Savior, or President Emperor Caesar, perhaps these candidates could be included on an article named Satirical candidacy, which could encompass the specifics of the message and activities of such candidates.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would support that. Gage (talk) 04:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would support that as well.--JayJasper (talk) 05:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes, that's okay with me too. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep He is a notable political satirist and performance artist. Apart from the many above-named sources: he was also featured and discussed by Wolf Blitzer, Sam Donaldson, and others in the 1996 documentary, "Why Can't I Be President?" produced for WGBH, WNET and other PBS stations: [7]; he featured prominently in the 2004 documentary "Winning New Hampshire": [8]; he was discussed at length in the print edition of The Economist: [9]; and he was briefly covered on NPR's All Things Considered in 2004: [10]. --Thiebes (talk) 07:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You haven't edited since February, long before this article was even created. What brings you to this discussion?--William S. Saturn (talk) 14:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What brings me to the discussion is that I am familiar with Vermin Supreme's efforts and was able to contribute the above facts. Your personal question seems to imply that I have some vested interest, which I do not. I have never met Supreme and have no particular stake in the matter other than that I value the truth and fairness. I think W'pedia's criteria for notability are fair and Vermin Supreme clearly passes them. --Thiebes (talk) 21:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And yet you started the AFD for Jim Nobles, a figure much more notable than Vermin Supreme.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- On the contrary, I strongly disagree tha Jim Nobles is somehow more notable unless you know of where he has been covered by sources like PBS, NPR, or The Economist, as Vermin Supreme has. Regardless, if you wish to debate the notability of Jim Nobles, this is hardly the forum for that. --Thiebes (talk) 02:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you did an archive search for Jim Nobles you'd find four times as many sources. But what the sources you provide for Vermin Supreme show is the notability of the concept of a Satirical candidacy, not the notability of the individual. The individual Vermin Supreme can be mentioned in such an article.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I did a search for Jim Nobles back then and as I recall, I did not find nationally distributed periodicals or broadcast television shows talking about him. Vermin Supreme is not merely mentioned in these sources. He is discussed at length, quoted, and pictured repeatedly. You are welcome to your opinion, but my vote stands, as I find Vermin Supreme to be a notable political satirist and this entry to be a valuable inclusion in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thiebes (talk • contribs) 07:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- [11] You seem to be more involved than you're admitting.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I received in the last 24 hours an email from Vermin Supreme complaining about the article's mention of his birth name. If my receiving an email from him has a bearing on his notability, I'm very interested to hear how, exactly, that might be. It's interesting to see how you continue to make ad hominem insinuations about me, presumably as a way to distract from the citations I offered above, rather than simply addressing the question of the notability of Vermin Supreme. Do you have some ulterior motive for attempting to undermine my Strong Keep vote? The citations I offered above remain valid and legitimate, you know. --24.20.44.169 (talk) 02:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So you have regular e-mail contact with the individual?--William S. Saturn (talk) 03:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope. Do you have any relevant points to make? --Thiebes (talk) 03:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So then how did he know to contact you?--William S. Saturn (talk) 03:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Presumably he saw my comments here, I didn't ask him. --Thiebes (talk) 03:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So you report on this page that there is some debate between Vermin Supreme and a dead cult leader named Aleister Crowley, whom you voted for in 2008. Are you still going to deny that you have something to do with this individual? --William S. Saturn (talk) 04:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have already stated that he sent me an email and that I am familiar with his work. I don't think that these facts change the value of the cited sources which demonstrate his notability. --Thiebes (talk) 10:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So you report on this page that there is some debate between Vermin Supreme and a dead cult leader named Aleister Crowley, whom you voted for in 2008. Are you still going to deny that you have something to do with this individual? --William S. Saturn (talk) 04:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Presumably he saw my comments here, I didn't ask him. --Thiebes (talk) 03:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So then how did he know to contact you?--William S. Saturn (talk) 03:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope. Do you have any relevant points to make? --Thiebes (talk) 03:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So you have regular e-mail contact with the individual?--William S. Saturn (talk) 03:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I received in the last 24 hours an email from Vermin Supreme complaining about the article's mention of his birth name. If my receiving an email from him has a bearing on his notability, I'm very interested to hear how, exactly, that might be. It's interesting to see how you continue to make ad hominem insinuations about me, presumably as a way to distract from the citations I offered above, rather than simply addressing the question of the notability of Vermin Supreme. Do you have some ulterior motive for attempting to undermine my Strong Keep vote? The citations I offered above remain valid and legitimate, you know. --24.20.44.169 (talk) 02:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- [11] You seem to be more involved than you're admitting.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I did a search for Jim Nobles back then and as I recall, I did not find nationally distributed periodicals or broadcast television shows talking about him. Vermin Supreme is not merely mentioned in these sources. He is discussed at length, quoted, and pictured repeatedly. You are welcome to your opinion, but my vote stands, as I find Vermin Supreme to be a notable political satirist and this entry to be a valuable inclusion in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thiebes (talk • contribs) 07:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you did an archive search for Jim Nobles you'd find four times as many sources. But what the sources you provide for Vermin Supreme show is the notability of the concept of a Satirical candidacy, not the notability of the individual. The individual Vermin Supreme can be mentioned in such an article.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- On the contrary, I strongly disagree tha Jim Nobles is somehow more notable unless you know of where he has been covered by sources like PBS, NPR, or The Economist, as Vermin Supreme has. Regardless, if you wish to debate the notability of Jim Nobles, this is hardly the forum for that. --Thiebes (talk) 02:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And yet you started the AFD for Jim Nobles, a figure much more notable than Vermin Supreme.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What brings me to the discussion is that I am familiar with Vermin Supreme's efforts and was able to contribute the above facts. Your personal question seems to imply that I have some vested interest, which I do not. I have never met Supreme and have no particular stake in the matter other than that I value the truth and fairness. I think W'pedia's criteria for notability are fair and Vermin Supreme clearly passes them. --Thiebes (talk) 21:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You haven't edited since February, long before this article was even created. What brings you to this discussion?--William S. Saturn (talk) 14:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Joke candidacy got mentions but this is not substantive coverage. Hekerui (talk) 11:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? Have you looked at the references that clearly demonstrate substantive coverage? Hint: Click on any of the links in this reply. Basket of Puppies 02:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- When the headlines read "If Elected, No Flying Toothbrush Monkeys", "Running Gag" and "Vermin Supreme grabs three local votes" you know the coverage is humorous, not substantial. Ole Savior got some coverage for running with a vampire, this guy does it for wearing a shoe. Hekerui (talk) 06:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You stated that he has not been subject to substantive coverage. I demonstrated that is incorrect. Is your opinion that his jokster platform makes him unnotable? If so then WP:N will have to be updated to reflect that we don't include joksters, even if they receive extreme amounts of substantive coverage. Basket of Puppies 07:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- When the headlines read "If Elected, No Flying Toothbrush Monkeys", "Running Gag" and "Vermin Supreme grabs three local votes" you know the coverage is humorous, not substantial. Ole Savior got some coverage for running with a vampire, this guy does it for wearing a shoe. Hekerui (talk) 06:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Has substantial coverage in independent sources, is presumed notable. See wp:GNG. Yes, some of the references are short blurbs that aren't sufficient to contribute to notability, but there is enough significant coverage in sources of high enough caliber to put him over the notability line. Buddy431 (talk) 05:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- From GNG: "'Presumed' means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article." See the proposal above. The candidate can be more appropriately discussed at an article on "Satirical candidates".--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:03, 13 June 2011 (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.