Wikipedia

User:Lionelt/Foobar

< User:Lionelt


Shortcut

Welcome to WikiProject Conservatism! A friendly and fun place where group members can easily ask questions, meet new colleagues and join A-Team collaborations to create prestigious, high quality A-Class articles. Whether you're a newcomer or regular, you'll receive encouragement and recognition for your achievements with conservatism-related articles. This project does not extol any point of view, political or otherwise, other than that of a neutral documentarian.

  • Have you thought about submitting your new article to "Did You Know"? It's the easiest and funnest way to get your creation on the Main Page. More info can be found in our guide "DYK For Newbies."
  • We're happy to assess your new article as well as developed articles. Make a request here.
  • Experienced editors may want to jump right in and join an A-Team. While A-Class is more rigorous than a Good Article, you don't have to deal with the lengthy backlog at GA. If you already have an article you would like to promote, you can post a request for co-nominators here.
  • Do you have a question? Just ask

Alerts

edit
Articles needing attention
Conservatism articles needing expert attention
Agenda 47
Jatiya Party (Ershad)
Douglas Murray (author)
National conservatism
Bart Jan Spruyt
Doug Wardlow
Bill Whatcott

Did you know

Articles for deletion

Templates for discussion

Redirects for discussion

Good article nominees

Requests for comments

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

Articles to be split

Articles for creation

Other alerts
Deletion sorting/Conservatism

Conservatism

edit
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 per WP:SNOW. A move can be discussed separately.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:44, 8 September 2024 (UTC)‎

Tenet Media

edit
Tenet Media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Company may fall under issues related to WP:ILLCON. At present, all sources on the page are related to a current DOJ indictment. I have searched for articles discussing the organization published prior to September 1 and have been unable to find anything establishing notability (which is honestly surprising). See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lauren Chen. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:26, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Keep or rename. If you don't like the article being about the organization, perhaps you should change the article title to 2024 Tenet Media investigation or 2024 DoJ Russian influence investigation, which most certainly is notable. Just because something's recent or in the news does not mean it's not notable. — The Anome (talk) 14:52, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Companies, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 15:00, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment: This is a tough one, I guess they can't be notable for simply being investigated, but there is tooooooo much coverage of it happening to not be notable, somehow. Oaktree b (talk) 15:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Redirect seems like a good choice, probably to a new "Russian influcence" as suggested; I don't think this will be the only such outlet to get investigated. This seems to be a big thing that will involve many more outlets... Oaktree b (talk) 15:33, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:42, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep per Anome Andre🚐 18:02, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep but supporting a move to 2024 Tenet Media investigation, since that is the one thing the company appears to be notable for. Cortador (talk) 18:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep topic of a current event and a canonical destination for domain redirects. Premature narrowing of scope to naming one investigation is a non-NPOV act, topic is too new to assume that's the only notability. Tantek (talk) 19:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename 2024 Tenet Media investigation per The Anome and Cortador. Sal2100 (talk) 19:40, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep Notability is established, and stating to also look at the AfD for Lauren Chen is more about finding which sources should go where (if not for both). Discussion about merging into one article should be separate from this AfD. – The Grid (talk) 20:05, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
    Has notability for the company been established, or has the notability of the event been established? The indictment and event is notable, but that doesn't make the company (or Chen) inherently notable. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 21:46, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep Patently ridiculous deletion rationale. Kakurokuna (talk) 20:42, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep - good grief. Is this a parody? Nfitz (talk) 21:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep - the knowledge is important. I came here first when I heard the news to learn more. RJX74 (talk) 21:54, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep - Keep, the only people who want this taken down are the Russian government. In all seriousness, this is a very important, and historical story PaulPachad (talk) 23:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep Widely covered, evidently noteworthy. It's conceivable that the topic could better be discussed under another name or as part of a different article, but that's not a given (and we don't need to decide that here and now). XOR'easter (talk) 23:55, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep Significant public interest. Obscurasky (talk) 00:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep Nashhinton (talk) 00:14, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep clearly in the public interest at this point Redgon (talk) 05:24, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep: Keep or potentially move. Coverage of the scandal, even if not about the company itself, is at least sufficient. seefooddiet (talk) 08:28, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep Clearly notable and article could be expanded to include the history prior to the scandal Isla🏳️‍⚧ 10:26, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep This article is unambiguously notable with hundreds if not thousands of related news stories in recent days. As for the argument that there aren't a lot of sources discussing the company prior to September 1, therefore it should be deleted, I don't find that argument particularly persuasive. It seems like the owners of Tenet might have had good reason not to widely publicise its existence so the lack of news stories wouldn't seem like sufficient grounds to delete the article. I do agree though with what several have said above though that the article should be expanded to include more information and history of the company prior to the scandal. ZEQFS (talk) 2024-09-07 13:12 (UTC)
  • Keep (and possibly rename). At the time of nomination, this article easily passed GNG, so the nomination violates policy right there. We are supposed to fix, not delete, content that may not be perfect, and that includes new articles. Bogus MfD and AfD nominations should boomerang resoundingly enough that they stop being such a common practice. Ask ONE question "Does this pass GNG?" If it does, do not nominate it. Even if it has very serious problems that cannot be remedied easily (by adding sourcing or simply deleting serious BLP violations), other options than deletion are available, such as sending it back to userspace or draftspace. These bogus nominations are a serious deterrent and discouragement to the efforts of good faith editors who work hard to create our articles. They are a personal affront to them, so don't do it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:14, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
    Hi, Valjean! Thank you for raising your concerns. I brought this article to AfD not necessarily because I believed the allegations were non-notable but rather because of concerns focusing on the company and individual, which potentially brings up issues related to ILLCON, BLPCRIME, etc., which has not been addressed in this AfD, save for the comments about renaming the page, which I would happily agree to. Otherwise, the question remains regarding whether the company (and person, Lauren Chen) were notable prior to the investigation. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:39, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep per Valjean. Thriley (talk) 22:48, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep I came to wikipedia to find this info, demonstrating interest 01:09, 8 September 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.212.65.143 (talk)
  • Keep This article is absolutely vital. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 06:40, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep - at what point can we close this discussion? Superb Owl (talk) 07:06, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep - the article is important, the fact that most links are related to the DOJ indictment is not reason enough to remove it. Michail (blah) 09:34, 8 September 2024 (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.

Lauren Chen

edit
Lauren Chen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This BLP was created following the announcement that Chen has been indicted by the DOJ for disseminating pro-Russian propaganda. All the sources used in the article discuss the indictment, and the article's primary focus is the indictment. A draft currently exists, which directs back to this page. I have searched for coverage prior to September 1 but have yet to find anything to establish notability (which is honestly surprising to me). I found a few academic journal articles that mention Chen, but there is no SIGCOV. Otherwise, internet sources appear to be primary. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Nonsense 2600:1700:1A32:EE30:A41D:C079:4CBE:5596 (talk) 13:02, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Semi Bird

edit
Semi Bird (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article cites a lot of sources, but they're nearly all about his gubernatorial campaign or recall, and the rest are from local outlets about actions taken by the school board while he was in office. At least 6 of the sources are just election results. Just implicitly, I don't see how running for governor and getting recalled from his school board position make him notable enough for a Wikipedia page. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 15:09, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete: Yes, a failed political candidate isn't notable, the article seems to focus on the various "controversies", wearing masks, faking the diver's badge... I don't see notability based on scandals alone. A school board position isn't quite NPOL. Oaktree b (talk) 15:25, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Conservatism, and California. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:32, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Keep, I think he meets WP:BASIC. Bird is a fairly major Republican in Washington State, there is significant coverage on him as a person as well. Microplastic Consumer (talk) 00:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete, clearly fails NPOL and does not meet the general notability guideline. I doubt he will have enough lasting coverage to satisfy the latter, given how early his campaign fizzled out. SounderBruce 05:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Darryl Cooper

edit
Darryl Cooper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article was just created on 3 September 2024, and only because of his appearance with Tucker Carlson where he said some controversial stuff. This is a WP:BLP1E - person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. WP:NOTNEWS also applies here, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. And editors trying to REFBOMB the lead with subpar sources to describe him as a Nazi apologist is not encouraging either. Isaidnoway (talk) 04:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep the traffic figures on the page prove the subject is notable. Users are looking for this info. Deleters seem to have a political agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chairmanmeow (talk • contribs) 11:06, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
It doesn’t necessarily mean they are interested in Cooper personally, just Tucker’s interview with him. The interview seems to be more notable than the man himself.2600:1014:B08A:AA77:7590:7A20:426C:1D6E (talk) 18:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Xegma(talk) 07:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Just curious, is it Huffpo, Haaretz, or TNR that you think is a subpar source? Googleguy007 (talk) 05:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Xegma, we are more interested in what the sources say than in your opinion of the subject as a person. Liz Read! Talk! 06:34, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
All three. None of those three sources directly and explicitly state that Cooper is a "Nazi apologist". Please see WP:HEADLINES - News headlines are not a reliable source. So since they fail to verify a contentious claim about a BLP, that makes them subpar. Those eight citations in the lead sentence are a classic example of WP:REFBOMB. For a BLP, Wikipedia prefers high-quality sources that actually verify the content. Isaidnoway (talk) 11:23, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Haaretz? You're using a clear biased source on the subject. Watch the interview - nothing you have written is even remotely true. It's just more ADL nonsense against someone who is merely questioning the narrative. ArmenianSniper (talk) 11:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
What's "ADL nonsense"? AusLondonder (talk) 14:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Yes, what is ADL? Gusbenz (talk) 20:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
I still disagree, but I apologize for the immature and unprofessional way I acted in the above comment, I should have been better than that Googleguy007 (talk) 12:30, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete Classic BLP1E. You don't meet notability requirements on Wikipedia by appearing on a podcast. Not do you meet notability requirements by making abundantly false and disgusting comments. AusLondonder (talk) 09:57, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
    First off, "false" and "disgusting" according to whom? Questioning the narrative is neither of those. Everything Cooper discussed was referenced from various sources and this can be seen in his Substack. Truths you don't like doesn't make them false or disgusting. ArmenianSniper (talk) 11:52, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
    Do follower counts impact notability? I'd say so, but I'm unsure of Wikipedia's policy. Has 260k on Twitter (https://twitter.com/martyrmade) 111k on Substack (https://substack.com/@martyrmade). Not a fan of some of his comments but the deletion seems biased. Cosmokiwi (talk) 14:24, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
    Seems like this Wikipedia:Overzealous deletion Cosmokiwi (talk) 14:26, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
    We generally don't assign notability based on social media followers alone. Googleguy007 (talk) 14:29, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
"And editors trying to REFBOMB the lead with subpar sources to describe him as a Nazi apologist is not encouraging either."
Indeed, sir. ArmenianSniper (talk) 11:54, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
If you believe the views that Cooper has expressed regarding the Holocaust and Hitler are "truths" you shouldn't be editing an encyclopaedia. See WP:NONAZIS. AusLondonder (talk) 14:05, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Cooper did not deny the holocaust. Who wrote this wiki? 78.70.226.184 (talk) 20:35, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep What are the "sub-par sources"? See WP:RSPADL. I think most people with tens of thousands of paying Substack subscribers (purple check) and an extremely popular podcast are notable. GordonGlottal (talk) 15:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
    I wasn't referring to the ADL. When I nominated the article there were eight citations in the lead sentence that I considered sub-par, they have since been removed. And people with tens of thousands of paying Substack subscribers (purple check) and an extremely popular podcast are notable, only if they meet the criteria outlined in our policies and guidelines for notability. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:36, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
    OK so irrelevant now. I know that editors have discussed standing up special notability guidelines for journalists/writers/etc. as we have for academics and some other groups, but I don't think that's actually happened yet. GordonGlottal (talk) 23:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete - aside from the WP:BLP1E material in the last section, the sourcing is primary or passing mentions not meeting WP:SIGCOV. I don't see a pass for WP:AUTHOR or other creative professional categories, either. LizardJr8 (talk) 18:29, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Regarding "notable for one event" and "low profile individual":
I can see the argument for item 1 (Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event) or taking issue with the sources in general, but there's really no justification for deletion considering "each of three conditions" have not been met by a mile (you really don't cover points 2 and 3 enough at all) Clearly, the warning "often misapplied in deletion discussions" applies here: "Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile," and this clearly fits the bill. Suggesting otherwise suggests that perhaps your emotions or personal views are getting in the way of Wikipedia's neutrality policy. Wikipedia should include information about this person and their broad reach / cultural impact, particularly now that he's been all over the news. If available information is currently limited, this article should be flagged in some other way, not marked for deletion. Again, the phrasing of "Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable" is extremely clear, even for the average user. 24.34.221.193 (talk) 20:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Then perhaps you should provide some published reliable sources that have significant coverage about this person who is actively seeking out media attention to establish his notability, other than just headlines and in the news items that have been recently reported in the 24 hour news cycle. Looks like to me the news cycle has left this person in the dust and moved on to Russian disinformation. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:03, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Rename to Tucker Carlson interview with Darryl Cooper. Cooper himself is not notable because of BLP1E, but this interview definitely seems to be notable because of the controversy it has brought Carlson and Musk. The White House has now weighed in with a denunciation. See [9]. However, it’s telling that the condemnation focuses more on Carlson "giving a microphone" to Cooper, than it does on Cooper himself. There is precedent for articles about specific interviews, see the article for Tucker Carlson's interview with Vladimir Putin. The Cooper interview has caused a similar amount of controversy, even though unlike the Putin case, the guest was someone who is not otherwise notable apart from the interview.2600:1014:B08A:AA77:E890:70AA:7E06:BEF4 (talk) 23:02, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete Agree with nominator, he is only known for his appearance on Carlson's show. There are insufficient reliable sources to describe his career. It would be helpful for example to know if someone Carlson calls a historian actually has a degree or any published work in history. TFD (talk) 08:23, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
    Agree. A historian? I see no credentials. 2603:7080:5000:A807:4DCF:3EE0:5E8B:C122 (talk) 11:09, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
    Do you need credentials to be a historian? He publishes his work for all to see. Most popular historians do not have PhD. 136.242.8.20 (talk) 15:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
To be considered a historian, a person typically needs to have at least a master's degree in history, demonstrate strong research skills, analyze historical evidence, and be able to communicate their findings effectively through writing and other mediums. It seems that Cooper fails this consideration, particularly in his apparent inability to "analyze historical evidence" and "communicate their findings effectively". Cooper's "findings" are basically his opinion and conspiracy theories. There is no criteria for a person to be considered a historian when the only appellation is an introduction by Tucker Carlson claiming that Mr. Cooper is “the most important popular historian working in the United States today.” Tucker Carlson was simply trying to provide credibility and puff up his guest so his listeners would believe Cooper. Cooper isn't a historian. Osomite 🐻 (hablemos) 18:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
There are lots of vids of him on YouTube interviewing on many popular podcasts, about 10 months ago, re: Israel/Palestine, where he seems to receive generally and glaringly positive comments from all political spectrums. 2600:1005:A122:804:B164:2619:1DC6:E756 (talk) 14:14, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Merge into Tucker Carlson, is WP:BLP1E, is more about tucker platforming racists than anything. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:38, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
    Agree. Merge into Tucker Carlson.
    If this information about Cooper is worthy of being recorded in Wikipedia, it should be included in the Tucker Carlson page. Osomite 🐻 (hablemos) 18:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
    Agree. Merge into Tucker Carlson. Wyattroberts (talk) 23:55, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, this sounds sane. Gusbenz (talk) 20:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete Agree with nominator that he is only known for this one distasteful appearance on Tucker Carlson. That shouldn't pass notability; it should barely merit a mention on Carlson's show page. --FeldBum (talk) 19:15, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, correct. Let's delete this folks? Gusbenz (talk) 20:21, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
    He had been on many popular podcasts about 10 month ago, where he was widely praised by all political spectrums for his analysis of the Israel/Gaza conflict. Simple search on YouTube can find the vids and glowing commentary. 2600:1005:A122:804:B164:2619:1DC6:E756 (talk) 13:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
    This would feel less arm-wavy if you were to link to such praise and provide a sample quote from a reputable SME. "Just Google it" is insufficient, especially if the end result is random YouTube comments. NapoliRoma (talk) 16:17, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
    Unless the "praise" is coming from mainstream media outlets, YouTube videos aren't reliable sources per WP:SELFPUBLISHED. seefooddiet (talk) 23:54, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. The sources already in the article plus those from our longer article in German prove notability, provide sufficient biographical information and are reliable enough.John Z (talk) 17:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
    I've looked through the sources on that article, and they're all primarily about his appearance on Tucker Carlson. The articles are largely about the views from the context of the interview. I don't really believe that it's enough for notability. If he had more continued notability across time then I'd be convinced, but so far it's just more of the same. seefooddiet (talk) 23:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
    The German version was created at the same time as the English version, and only because of Coopers appearance with Tucker Carlson, so the German article is also a BLP1E, as evidenced by the amount of content dedicated to the Carlson interview. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:52, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment: This source mentions that Cooper attracted some attention in 2021 for defending Trump’s election fraud claims. Whether that’s enough to avoid the BLP1E issue, I’m not sure.2600:1014:B08A:AA77:7590:7A20:426C:1D6E (talk) 20:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
    I don't think it is. It's a two-sentence mention of a previous instance (a Twitter thread). seefooddiet (talk) 23:53, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. A single appearance on a streaming talk show, no matter how controversial, does not establish notability for the subject, nor do the other passing mentions. WP should not be in the business of promoting obscure personalities.- Donald Albury 18:06, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Jeremy Carl

edit
Jeremy Carl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 12:56, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep. Definitely looks notable enough for me. The broken image isn't ideal, but will re-upload and substitute it for a cropped version. Biohistorian15 (talk) 16:36, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep It's a bit thin - both the Washington Examiner and American Conservative are considered only so-so in terms of reliability. I don't know the reputation of the European Conservative. But there is an article in the Washington Post and the EENews is a Politico publication. Not yet in the article is Vox discussing his book. There are articles in other publications that I am not familiar with. His book is published by a lesser-known publisher, Skyhorse, but it's not self-published. Lamona (talk) 04:16, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Tasks

edit
Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
view • edit • discuss • history • watch


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lionelt/Foobar&oldid=847289906"