Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Klee Irwin (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Klee Irwin

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

Delete - Subject is too obscure to write more than a stub. The few primary sources available present an unbalanced view of the subject's life, focusing on problems, omitting accomplishments and providing no context. Jehochman ^Talk 20:40, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: There are no RS in this article. However the above argument claims the subject is "too obscure to write more than a stub". Well, look at the bottom, the article is indeed but a stub :) And that is okay. Stubs are allowed on Wikipedia. And a search for more sources reveals the subject could have some RS. More than that, if the argument is that it should be deleted because the sources show a positive or negative point of view, and that it might not grow, there is no basis for deletion here within Wikipedia policy. Jeremy112233 (talk) 21:03, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I said "more than" a stub. There aren't enough Reliable Sources to write MORE THAN A STUB. That's the criteria to delete an article. You've just said the article is (1) a stub, and (2) that it has no reliable sources. You've just proved my point. Wikipedia is not a platform for slandering people. This article looks like an attack piece. I don't believe there are sufficient reliable sources, but if you want to convince me otherwise, you'd need to list some of them, not just wave your hands and say "could have some". Jehochman ^Talk 23:15, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No one is waving their hands :) I'm just saying there is no actual Wikipedia policy argument here. Please provide links to it if you have one. Other than that, try these: [1] and [2], or something like this [3]. Most articles are fairly negative towards Irwin, but they do exist.Jeremy112233 (talk) 23:55, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your 1st reference is just a passing mention, literally one sentence of fact, and a bunch of "he said" allegations from a litigation adversary. The 2nd and 3rd links reveal zero content about the subject! I'm not seeing sufficient coverage to pass the general notability guideline. Jehochman ^Talk 00:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's your opinion on the idea that Irwin Naturals, the company he founded, has a great deal of RS on it? Jeremy112233 (talk) 00:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point out some links? If so, move the article. This bio is abnormal. There nothing about his early life, education, honors, etc that one normally finds in a bio. Jehochman ^Talk 11:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I find time, not a huge priority for me. I like your view on bios though--I think there are thousands of bios on Wikipedia that would likely get deleted if we went according to your view, and I don't think that would be an entirely bad thing.Jeremy112233 (talk) 21:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It is a fine thing to want to keep and improve articles. However, sometimes the task is too hard to do properly. With an impersonal topic, such as a species of mushroom, it doesn't matter if the article is weak or lopsided (as long as it doesn't misrepresent a poisonous mushroom to be edible). However, with an article about a person, a bad one can have a real impact on that person's life, so we have to aim for higher standards and follow the principle of "first, do no harm". Jehochman ^Talk 22:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We've got press releases and other primary sources -- nothing that would establish this person's notability. The one reference that looked like it might be reliable failed verification -- due to dead links. Jehochman ^Talk 23:23, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Use the Wayback machine; a deadlink does not cause failed verification.Jeremy112233 (talk) 23:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In this case it did. The Wayback machine link did not work. I don't know if the reference was fabricated, or erroneous, or what, but the burden is on people seeking to include negative BLP info to provide a good reference. Jehochman ^Talk 00:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. I still highly disagree that a person should be deleted from Wikipedia through an argument that the balance of their sources is negative.Jeremy112233 (talk) 00:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The guy is non notable. Apparently an enemy or detractor gathered some primary source info and created this hatchet job bio. That is contrary to Wikipedia policies. Jehochman ^Talk 11:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don`t see this as a hatchet job, though as I said, I believe this is a weak keep, not an incredibly notable individual.Jeremy112233 (talk) 21:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - None of the sourcing in the article is usable for notability. From the above links we have a bare passing mention (is it even the same guy a this article?). The other two are paywalled. I lost my highbeam access, but somebody who does have access could check [4] which I suspect based on the summary is just a passing mention, and [5]. I found [6], and [7] in my own searches. Adding this all up, I don't see that the notability bar has been cleared. -- Whpq (talk) 20:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep " Subject is too obscure to write more than a stub." is not an argument for deletion. It's an argument for keeping, as a stub. The material is adequately sourced, even for negative BLP. When there is more to say, it can be added. DGG ( talk ) 23:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Dgg, it's all primary source stuff, a real hit job. Did you read the article and look at the sources? Jehochman ^Talk 23:25, 19 May 2013 (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.