Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed Winters (2nd nomination)

Add links
From 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. While there has been no discussion since the relist I seem a clear delete consensus among existing discussion with more than adequate participation. There has been substantial discussion of the sources that those favoring keep suggest show notability which those suggesting delete find unreliable or in some other way against our content policies. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:29, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Winters

[edit]
AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Ed Winters (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)

I was the closing admin when this was deleted in 2018. It has been reposted and expanded. An editor asked me to help them with sending it to AfD again as they were having problems with it being a repeat nomination. Their reasons for deletion can be found on the article's talk page here. I am neutral. Black Kite (talk) 20:44, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:08, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:09, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nearly all of the sources on the article are not reliable including promotional YouTube videos. I have done a commentary for some of them on the talk-page. There are self-published sources on the article owned by Ed Winters, most of the rest would fail WP:RS. vegnews.com, vegansociety.com, www.plantbasednews.org, landofhopeandglory.org, theofficialanimalrightsmarch.org etc are not reliable sources. If you strip out all of the unreliable stuff the only sources that are left are two tabloid newspapers and an article by USA Today criticizing Winter's comments on the coronavirus. The article reads as promotion and should be deleted. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:16, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Sorry I don't want to comment about editors here but please note the above IP 81.103.37.86 has been check-user blocked, this was very likely an IP being used by a sock-puppet as checkuser Bbb23 has recently blocked a lot of accounts. Psychologist Guy (talk) 04:29, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(OP comment) This is a shared IP address, just because a banned user may have happened to edit from it does not mean I was at all responsible for the recent block. Please stop casting aspersions as you have already done enough of that in the last 24 hours. 2A01:4C8:C60:36D3:DC37:ECAC:F47B:2E6E (talk) 18:16, 30 March 2020 (UTC) Also that you doubled down on your unproven assumption that this comment was "very likely" from a sock puppet after I had denied it shows that you are not assuming good faith and are trying to illegitimately swing the discussion in your favor. 2A01:4C8:C60:36D3:F8E2:7426:FB54:D921 (talk) 10:06, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The original IP you were using was a static virgin media IP and it was blocked because of sock-puppetry per a check-user block. Now you are using multiple mobile IPS. This is not appropriate behavior. Psychologist Guy (talk) 10:58, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As opposed to you hounding what is now a multiplicity of editors over this issue, which is perfectly appropriate. The blocked IP is in use by several people in the same apartment block. I am having to edit from a mobile to circumvent a block I had nothing to do with. 2A01:4C8:C60:36D3:F8E2:7426:FB54:D921 (talk) 22:12, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"The blocked IP is in use by several people in the same apartment block", yeh right. lol. You are a banned sock-puppet. Stop wasting our time. You are evading block and your recent mobile IP should be blocked as well. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:55, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are unwilling to admit that you might have made a mistake and so your discourse has devolved into nonsensicality. If you stand firm in your conviction that I'm a "banned sock-puppet" and my "mobile IP should be blocked as well", kindly explain the situation to an administrator so that that might happen. Although I'd recommend that you watch your step as your comportment in this whole debacle has been far from exemplary. Also please explain this. 2A01:4C8:C60:36D3:F8E2:7426:FB54:D921 (talk) 00:05, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This user was socking on the blocked IP 81.103.37.86, he has also been blocked on Mobile IPs for disruption. I have striked his vote. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:40, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Vegan Society is not a reliable source and there are no references for his TED talk apart from the videos themselves on YouTube which is promotional. The other TV talks you mention are a few clips on YouTube which are not reliable sources we can cite on the article. By the way 249 articles do not really link to this page per se. I added his name to the animal rights template, that is why that is happening. If his name is removed from the template he appears on no other articles. This guy is really not notable. As it stands almost every reference on the article is unreliable. Update I removed his name from that template and he appears on no other articles on Wikipedia. Funny that. Do you still think this guy is notable? Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • We wouldn't need to cite clips of his media appearances that have been posted on YouTube, as the BBC and other relevant organisations usually keep fairly thorough archives on that sort of thing. See here, for example. He clearly has a considerable social media presence as his instagram posts were enough to attract attention from PolitiFact and USAToday, even in the form of controversy. The article also mentions how Surge, an organisation he has co-founded and co-directs, convinced London Fashion Week to ditch fur, and this is reliably sourced to The Guardian, Vogue and BBC News. Given the size and prestige of this event it is certainly an achievement that counts for notability. 81.103.37.86 (talk) 13:17, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Some of that is original research and fake sourcing. Have a look here, [1]. Vogue and BBC News do not mention Ed Winters or his group Surge at all. We cannot cite references that do not mention Winters by name. Those references were removed per WP:OR. I was the first user to add the USAToday reference to this article and I agree it's a good source. It's one of the only reliable sources on the article but it is not enough to establish notability. If we delete 90% or more of the badly sourced material and content, all that would be left is about three sources and the article would be a tiny stub. I don't think there is enough here to establish a proper article. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:30, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Another user is now adding plantbasednews.org as a source to the article. This source is not reliable. It fails WP:RS Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:38, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In-universe sources cannot be used to establish Notability, without them, not enough remains. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 15:43, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Vegan Society source is an article in The Vegan, the society's magazine, which has run for decades. As far as I can see, and despite assertions to the contrary, it's a reliable source. It's as reliable as any other magazine; we'd be OK with profiles of famous anglers in established angling magazines or cooks in cookery magazines - same with vegan activists in vegan magazines. He's been profiled in plenty of other vegan magazines, too, like Vegan Food and Living. The interviews on TV are also usable as sources, and definitely help to establish notability. There are plenty of mentions in national (and even international) newspapers, too; I noticed i, The Telegraph, and Metro. These are not that helpful to establish notability, but they're certainly citable. Secondary sources about Land of Hope and Glory, Surge, or Unity Diner also contribute to notability (e.g., this or this). All considered, I think there's enough here to justify an article. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:00, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Comment "The Vegan Society source is an article in The Vegan, the society's magazine, which has run for decades. As far as I can see, and despite assertions to the contrary, it's a reliable source". Please note J. Milburn is not just a member of the Vegan Society he sits on their Research Advisory Committee. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:14, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Vegan magazines are biased and not reliable sources for vegans, how can we have a neutral article on a vegan activist if we are using vegan sources? Vegan Food and Living is not a reliable source. Metro.co.uk is a British tabloid newspaper known for gossip and sensationalist stories. I don't know if it is considered a reliable source, users seem to have objected to that source on other biographies. The Surge website is owned by Ed Winters and outside of the vegan community there is hardly any mention of it. Landofhopeandglory.org/ is a website owned by Ed Winters. Unitydiner.co.uk is a website owned by Ed Winters. These primary sources do not establish notability. Which reliable secondary sources discuss these websites? There is a serious lack of this. As for this source it does not mention Ed Winters by name. I am not sure why that would contribute to his notability. I am not seeing enough reliable secondary sources for this guy that actually mention him by name and discuss him in detail but I have said enough on all of this. Other users can decide. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:25, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that something is partisan does not stop it being a reliable source. I dispute your claim that The Vegan and Vegan Food & Living are unreliable (and let's add Vegan Life to the list) - again, they're easily comparable to the kinds of hobby and lifestyle magazines you'd find in a newsagents. Do you think Christian magazines aren't reliable sources for Christians? Science magazines aren't reliable sources for scientists? Angling magazines aren't reliable sources for anglers? Conservative magazines aren't reliable sources for conservatives? We can also cite magazines that are partisan the other way, of course. Here and here are (paywalled) articles in Farmers Guardian, and here is a mention in Farmers Weekly. There aren't many vegan activists that get discussed in these kinds of publications. And I did not suggest that the websites for Land of Hope and Glory or Unity Diner established the notability of Winters. I was simply suggesting that sources about these things could help justify an article about him. I think that was fairly clear - so please do not misrepresent what I am saying. (I'm not really interested in bickering about Metro - I repeat that this was an example. I also mentioned The Telegraph and i. I didn't mention Forbes, Euronews...) Josh Milburn (talk) 17:38, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are ignoring WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. Reliable secondary sources need to be independent of the subject when it comes to fringe topics. I have never read a Christian magazine but I doubt they are cited on Wikipedia on scholarly theological topics. Yes I often cite science magazines they are reliable. There is a difference between science magazines and a vegan one. We should not be citing promotional vegan websites to establish notability for vegan activists, they are biased and not independent sources. It's possible to create articles on Wikipedia for notable vegans but the sources are lacking for Ed Winters. I have written articles for vegans at Wikipedia and they are all sourced to academic, neutral or scholarly sources, i.e. Russell Thacher Trall. When I created Trall's article did I cite unreliable vegan websites? No I didn't because that would be biased and against policy. I cited reliable academic sources neutral of the subject not written by vegans. You obviously do not understand the neutral point of view policy. Do you really believe Vegan Food & Living, Vegan Life or Farmer's Weekly are reliable sources to be using on an article about a vegan activist? If so, we will just have to agree to disagree. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:10, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am ignoring neither guideline. I am not proposing that we present the article in anything other than the neutral point of view, and I am not suggesting that we give prominence to any particular fringe theory. I am not sure those guideline pages say what you think they do, whether or not you think I "obviously" don't understand them. As for the rest: You are carving up the world into "reliable" and "unreliable" sources, and "independent" and "not independent" sources, on a whim (or, to make a leap, based upon your views/preferences). What you are saying has no obvious basis in policy. I am going to disengage now. I am doing my best to assume that you're acting in good faith, but you're drifting very close to saying that nothing written by a vegan could be a reliable source in an article on a vegan (...that would be biased and against policy. I cited reliable academic sources neutral of the subject not written by vegans.) Not only is that ridiculous, but, frankly, it's offensive. As such, I have no interest in continuing this conversation. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:21, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you are ignoring guidelines because you are a biased vegan. You are not being honest with people here who you are. You are a vegan activist associated with Winters. You are an active member of the Vegan Society as a link confirms posted on your user-page. You also know Ed Winters in real life "It follows the cancellation of the British Academy's 'Vegan .vs. Vegan' debate, featuring activist Ed Winters and academic Dr. Josh Milburn." [2]. Here you claim to be on the "Research Advisory Committee of the Vegan Society." This is not outing because you have linked to your website on your user-page and are open about your identity but you were not open about who you are on this afd or your connection to Winters. Per WP:COI and your personal connection to Winters and the Vegan Society your vote should be discounted. Did Winters tell you to come here? See WP:MEAT Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:05, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the topsy-turvy world of Wikipedia, where people signing their posts with their real name are accused by people using monikers of "not being honest with people about who [they] are". The way you are talking to me is disgusting, and has no place on a project like this. Your accusations are wide of the mark. Many of the claims you make about me are false. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:24, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Research Advisory Committee for the Vegan Society can be found here. You will see that Josh Milburn is listed. Nor did he declare the event with Ed Winters that he had planned vegan vs vegan on 19 Ma warch, 2020 so he knows Winters. We can all discuss this at the correct avenue. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:39, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--I do not personally agree with this activist, but the article is well sourced. As for "Do you think Christian magazines aren't reliable sources for Christians"--I see this all the time, and sadly there are people who latch onto this and use it repeatedly with their supporters. Maybe some day you will be in a position to return the favor next time you see this sort of bad behavior elsewhere.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:29, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PlantBasedNews.org is the first source, VeganLife Magazine the second, Vegan News the third, Vegan Food & Living the fourth and the 5th source is a link to Winter's own YouTube channel, etc. Is that well sourced? Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete (as a "biased vegan" myself). My problem with the vegan sources is not that they express a certain ideology—after all, angling, haute-cuisine, or Christian publications express their own ideologies as well. The problem is that their coverage is fawning, uniformly praising his accomplishments and describing them in WP:PUFFy ways ("renowned", "prominent", "extremely popular"). As a result, it's hard to extract material that could conform to the strict standards of WP:BLPSTYLE, or that doesn't sound likely to be exaggerated somehow (what exactly does "visited 1/3 of universities in the UK" mean?).
Cutting this material, reliable sources establish that he's a "vegan influencer" who started an activist group (which organized a well-attended march), a diner, and a food truck, and that he has appeared on TV several times to promote his views. That's not strictly too little to make an article out of, but it's probably not much more than someone Googling him would already know. I would prefer to wait a while and see if he attracts more substantial coverage from sources with a more critical editorial team. FourViolas (talk) 01:55, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have to say, BLP's need top line sources, this is not what I am seeing.Slatersteven (talk) 18:23, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. He wasn't notable the last time this was deleted, and he still isn't notable now. Catgirllover4ever (talk) 18:41, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I initially thought of nominating this article for deletion, but now after attempting to improve the article, I was able to add quite a few reliable sources such as The Guardian and other newspapers. (In the process, I also inadvertently added a few unreliable sources, but I quickly removed some of them, thanks to Psychologist Guy who pointed it out.) Still there are a couple of unreliable sources, which I'm trying to find reliable sources for. If unsuccessful, they can be removed, too, without compromising on the main content of the article. I now feel this article can be very well improved and hence recommend to keep this article. Thanks. Rasnaboy (talk) 07:12, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can find no mention of Winters here [[3]], am I missing it?Slatersteven (talk) 09:17, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please read from the sentence beginning "There have been claims on social media, sometimes posted by vegans, that if we ate less meat there would have been no Covid-19. Interestingly, some of these have been blocked by mainstream news organisations as 'partly false'." The "partly false" mentioned here is the response given to Ed Winters's statement that COVID-19 started because we eat animals (see the link given in the article itself in "blocked by mainstream news organisations": [4]). Winter's name is mentioned in the USA Today article. And the Guardian article is the rebuttal to that one and hence immediately states "The claims are also partly true" in the following sentence. If you read both the USA Today's and Guardian's articles ([5] and [6]), you will come to know the continuity. Thanks. Rasnaboy (talk) 10:31, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Slatersteven is correct that Guardian piece does not mention Ed Winters by name but Rasnaboy is also correct, there is a kind of continuity because the article does link to the USA Today. But because the source is not specifically about Winters and does not mention him by name, I believed it was WP:OR and I removed it. It has since been re-added. Some other references that have been recently added to the article do not mention Ed Winters by name. These two are just an examples DW News, BBC News, there are several others. I raised this on the talk page because it is a violation of WP:OR. Psychologist Guy (talk) 11:17, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
wp:v and wp:synth spring to mind.Slatersteven (talk) 11:20, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here are two other sources Rasnaboy added to the article which do not mention Winters Dw.com, Metro. This is rather concerning. An admin needs to have a look at what is going on here, and I suggest all references are checked and the ones that do not mention Winters to be removed. Psychologist Guy (talk) 11:25, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why these links are to be removed. They all are related to Winter's activism (either in his name or Surge's name). They either mention Winters or Surge (the name by which Winters does activism)(the METRO article) or simply mention the issue (like the accusation by vegan activists that COVID started because we ate animals) (the Guardian article). The DW ("Die-ins and fake blood") article is only a continuation of the other DW article which mentions Surge (instead of Winters) ([7]). When we say Gandhi started Indian National Congress (INC) and INC fought for Indian Independence, we can't say we can't link Gandhi with Indian Independence because the article only mentions the name of INC and not the name of Gandhi. Rasnaboy (talk) 11:48, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, we can. See wp:v, the source has to say what we want it to say.Slatersteven (talk) 11:53, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely understand wp:v and wp:synth. But it cannot be robotic but should be inferred with human discretion. Winters organizes the campaign under the name "Surge" and the news article says "The action is part of the Animal Rights March founded by the UK-based organization Surge" (the DW article) and the other DW article is just the continuation of this news (on the same date and the same reporter). Some of these articles (the Guardian) says Surge conducted the march, campaign, etc., or that "The event is organised by vegan activist collective Surge" (the METRO article), all of which refer to none other than Winters. If Winters gets arrested in the event, the article would say "Surge organizer was arrested" without even mentioning him as Winters. When a president orders airstrike against terrorists, the newspaper may read anything like "Obama orders airstrike", "America conducts airstrike", "Washington DC responded to the terrorists by conducting an operation", "America retaliated", etc., or even sometimes passively like "Terrorists receive response from their victims". These are not synthesizing but only various ways of saying the same thing. Even if Mr. Obama's name or America's name is not mentioned in any of these news, he is very much the person responsible for these and the article on him will always have links to these articles. Rasnaboy (talk) 12:32, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To use your INC example of an example of why we cannot do what you want [[8]] cannot be used to say "Gandhi extends full support and cooperation to govt", because it is not about him. Also I suggest you read wp:n, notability is not inherited.Slatersteven (talk) 12:52, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Will go through it again. Thanks. :) My example is only to elucidate the point. What I'm reiterating is that all these newspaper sources cited point to the same issue(s) that Winters is involved in. Even when Winters organizes the protest, some sources say "Winters did" and some other say "Surge did" (and still others say "the activist and his team did") and they all point to the same. Rasnaboy (talk) 14:03, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have said all I will have to say on the issue of verifiability, we are just going round in circles.Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please can we report socks to wp:spi.Slatersteven (talk) 07:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 10:28, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:52, 5 April 2020 (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/Ed_Winters_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1226104192"