Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Boykin

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. RL0919 (talk) 06:31, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Boykin

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not seem to be a notable individual. There are many sources, but some are self-published and others do not appear to provide in-depth coverage of the subject. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Freezer Bernie (talk) 05:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Freezer Bernie (talk) 05:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Peter Boykin is very notable as the founder of Gays For Trump, as indicated on the page. He has been featured on multiple mainstream media sources, including Newsweek, Time Magazine, BBC, and a slew of various gay publications. As well as he is a politician who ran for political office. Although there may be some items that are self-published they tend to just add to the sources and his notability. One would assume that someone who has been featured in so many mainstream publications must be notable. Also, note the size of the contributions of sources indicates that this individual has a place on this page. I would suggest that instead of removing the article one would suggest what changes should be implemented. 7valentine7 (talk) 24:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the Tag from the article, if you would like examples from other pages where a lot less information about individuals are supplied and they are still up I can provide. I would hate to say that due to the nature of the individual in question and his being controversial that in the same realm of milo yiannopoulos that many will attempt to shut down this article. I in good faith created this article with as much information as I could find on the subject. I have attempted to add information that has remained with fact and neutral to the matter. This person is notable, as many mainstream sources have covered him, and that he is a registered politician. All one has to do is a simple google search on this individual and the results are very high. Such is not for many people out there. This is why this person is of interest and is notable. I will remove the tag, as I object, I would have to claim that instead, this review history of the page has seen many individuals that did not have an issue with the article so this could be conceived as an attack on this article. 7valentine7 (talk) 24:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@7valentine7: Please do not remove AfD tags while the discussion is still ongoing. I have restored the tag --DannyS712 (talk) 04:44, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have indicated reasons on the talk page of Peter Boykin also there should not be any POV on the page as no reason was listed. I am not related nor involved with the subject nor am I paid by the subject, he has no influence in the article, as noted I have included all the information I could gather on the subject and created the page. There also is a large amount of information included. I believe I listed more than an ample amount of information. I would like to say that at this point I have reason to believe this article is being attacked due to the subject's conflicts with others in his community. I would hope this would not be the case. Please suggest a edit or a change that could satisfy this request for deletion. I would also suggest that if Gays for Trump is notable to be in wikipedia then one would expect that its highly news covered founder would also is a politician would be notable to be on wikipedia. 7valentine7 (talk) 24:49, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve - the article is currently a mess, but from GNEWS I can see significant coverage online in multiple WP:RS, e.g. [1], [2]. Freezer Bernie (talk) 04:54, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Freezer Bernie, Newsweek isn't being considered a reliable source any more based on their terrible journalistic practices of late. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. So, that's one source, which is definitely not "multiple". – Muboshgu (talk) 05:00, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's also significant coverage at Heavy.com [3], PinkNews in the UK [4], Washington Blade [5], and Gay Star News in the UK [6]. Freezer Bernie (talk) 05:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Another Believer: I've made some minor improvements to the introduction and Another Believer recently made several big improvement on the overall structure. I think the article has a big pile of problems, but it's not unsalvageable. agucova (talk) 05:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So if you do not believe Newsweek is reliable how about BBC, and Time Magazine which has both covered the subject? I would believe that sources can be objective, end of the day it would be like saying Fox News or CNN is all Fake News would you agree? 7valentine7 (talk) 05:29, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also if you believe this page "is a mess" then suggest ways or make edits to clean it up instead of requests to delete it. As it seems that there is more bias coming from those that are trying to take it down. This article has been created from sources only and no opinion (that I believe) has been specifically given by myself. If so gladly indicate or correct. 7valentine7 (talk) 05:29, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When can we remove the tag? I am willing to help improve the article if people will work with me. 7valentine7 (talk) 05:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I said it was a mess, not Muboshgu, who nominated the article for deletion. Deletion discussions can last a week or more. Please be patient, thanks. Freezer Bernie (talk) 05:38, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

7valentine7, welcome to Wikipedia. I'll try to offer some helpful explanation and advice. First, the tag on the article just tells people that there's a discussion open on whether to keep or delete the article. Such discussions normally remain open for 7 days. Removing the tag won't change anything... removing the tag merely conceals the link for additional people to come participate in this discussion. Removing the tag was 'unhelpful'. All we expect is for people not to repeat unhelpful things after they are informed that it's unhelpful, chuckle. It's pretty clear that this discussion is going to close as KEEP, so just relax and wait for Wikipedia to flow through this routine process. A lot of articles get tagged for discussion every day... more than half of those articles do get deleted but it's also common and normal for articles to get evaluated and kept. Just accept that it's considered normal and acceptable for an editor to question an article, and to open this sort of discussion. Most editors are just trying apply our countless policies and guidelines to clean up and improve the encyclopedia. The open-editing process means running into endless disagreements. It helps to try to just accept the Policies Guidelines and processes without getting stressed during any particular issue. We all started knowing zero, and editors who stick around simply learn as we go. Alsee (talk) 18:00, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He is definitely notable. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 05:50, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is notable, regardless of the current reference quality, and the page has been improved a lot since the request. agucova (talk) 06:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets GNG. This was a common case of needing cleanup, deletion was never needed. Gleeanon409 (talk) 10:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Failed political candidates are not notable. Almost all of the (search result)sources look rather dubious as Reliable Sources. Almost all of the sources that clearly are Reliable are pretty worthless for establishing Notability because they are trivial passing mentions. His notability basically amounts to being commonly cited in passing mention as a token freak, or (metaphorically) for persistently juggling dead babies in clown suit. However this NBC News piece plus a rather large pile of mostly crap other sources does add up to passing the Notability Guideline. It looks like the article is likely to be a time sink, requiring cleanup work to clear out youtube videos and other crap that doesn't belong in any article. It would be a net plus if we did delete it. C'est la vie. Alsee (talk) 16:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. After the editing of multiple individuals that agree the page needed work they have all agreed this article should remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 7valentine7 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nothing new to add. Notable enough to have standalone article. Just needs some work to remove puff. Accesscrawl (talk) 14:55, 27 January 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.