Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Fuentes (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. Reliable sources were added to the article during the deletion discussion, and more editors believed that Fuentes met the general notability guideline with these additional sources. However, many of the editors who participated earlier in the discussion did not update their comments to reflect the article changes. — Newslinger talk 04:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Fuentes

[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)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Fuentes. ~~There is no indication that the notability of the subject has changed since January 2019 when the previous deletion discussion was closed.~~ Robert McClenon (talk) 07:12, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See Draft:Nick Fuentes. If this article is kept, the draft should be replaced with a redirect. If this article is deleted, this draft should be Rejected. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:15, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:53, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:53, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:53, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WaPo source is new but this still falls short of GNG, in my view. Guy (help!) 10:55, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. He is mentioned/discussed in some of the sources, but those articles aren't actually about him. Those that are are local news only. Jmertel23 (talk) 13:23, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see what has changed since the last AFD. Sources are incidental to him and don't establish notability about him in particular. Could be selectively merged to Right Side Broadcasting Network. Reywas92^Talk 20:39, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I concur with Reywas92, not enough has changed since the last AFD. I fail to see how the sources support his notability. User:1brettsnyder 03:58, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ben Shapiro gave a 45 minute speech at Stanford about Fuentes, wherein he referred to him as a 'lead influencer of the alt-right'. He has also had a lot of similar attention from other conservative commentators (such as Turning Point USA president Charlie Kirk, who at a University of Houston event pulled out a television with a clip from the Nicholas J. Fuentes show to demonstrate a point about Fuentes to his crowd). There have been a substantial number of articles written about the recent influence he has had on conservatism. He is a 'hot topic' right now, and more detail certainly needs to be added to the page to reflect this, but I believe WP:Notability could ultimately be satisfied and it is simply the case that the page is a work in progress and not all details have been fleshed out yet.150.203.2.234 (talk) 05:28, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough has changed since the last AfD coverage-wise to establish notability. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:27, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I concur with the previous statements. This article is not backed up by enough information and not relevant enough.
Delete per WP:TNT. Even assuming he were notable, which I do not concede, the page is written as an essay (e.g,, "last month") not an encyclopedia article. The connections to actually (in)famous people are tenuous at best, and the sources are unreliable. He's a run of the mill, up and coming young activist. I would not object to userfying to a draft page. He may yet become notable, but we are not a resume service. Bearian (talk) 18:47, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn’t qualify as per WP:GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 00:03, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- he's been receiving significant news coverage very recently as the leading spirit behind Donald Trump Jr. being heckled at Berkeley, which undermines the claim that "the notability of the subject has [not] changed since January"... AnonMoos (talk) 08:40, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's been the subject of multiple stories in major publications. The fact that it's recent doesn't negate notability. — Confession0791 ^talk 18:48, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG sources mention subject but are not about subject. Hughesdarren (talk) 23:01, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to User:Bearian and anyone else: There is already also a draft, Draft:Nick Fuentes. If this article is kept, the draft should be converted to a redirect. If this article is deleted, this AFD should decide whether to keep a draft, or to delete the draft and salt the title in article and draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:42, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - My own recommendation is to keep a draft but to extended-confirmed protect the title in article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:42, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This sounds reasonable to me. Jmertel23 (talk) 13:42, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting recently closed Afd as closing admin, based on new information for further discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JGHowes ^talk 21:48, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Can the additional information be added to the article so that those of us who already !voted know whether we should change our positions? I am willing to review and reconsider if the article is revised, and I assume other good-faith editors will do likewise. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:01, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Nate Hooper and Confession0791 at Draft talk:Nick Fuentes#Sources for Nick's article. There are now multiple reliable sources, including an entire documentary by MTV. The man is now notable. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 20:36, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. I understand the motive to marginalize a racist, but he clearly satisfies notability guidelines, including WP:GNG. He is the leader of the "Groyper" movement which is also notable due to press coverage. In light of the various mainstream sources others have cited which mention or discuss Fuentes, we would not be considering deletion if he were an anodyne journalist or political figure. GergisBaki (talk) 01:35, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does not have enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Nika2020 (talk) 14:46, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep at this time (although I was the original nominator), agreeing that the subject has achieved marginal notability (and have struck part of my nomination). The fact that many people consider the subject to be a racist or villain is not a reason to exclude coverage if he is a notable racist or other villain (agreeing with User:GergisBaki). Robert McClenon (talk) 00:38, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - There is definitely more coverage than the last go around. Most coverage is for his group's trolling with TPUSA. This event was designed to generate scandal and media coverage, and still only manages to get news-briefs and political gossip columns. Do any reliable sources have any reason to keep discussing this? If not, this would be better as a couple of paragraphs at Turning Point USA. Grayfell (talk) 03:45, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - there's been enough improvements in the article and draft that I'd go along with its eventual retention. Bearian (talk) 00:39, 4 January 2020 (UTC) P.S. I can't emphasize enough how this is in now way even close to an endorsement of the subject's racist and sexist views. Bearian (talk) 00:41, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. He's obviously quite an influential figure in the far right and considering he's had an MTV documentary made about him and a confrontation with Ben Shapiro that resulted in a Fox News op-ed since the last time this article was up for deletion, I would say he's exceptionally notable at this point. He's even hosted his own "party meetings" with hundreds, if not thousands in attendance. We should always strive for quality and consistency. If Fuentes is not notable enough for an article, theres no reason dozens of political twitch streamers, buzzfeed level "journalists" and youtubers with less than 500k subscribers should have articles either. Not to mention, (correct me if I'm wrong) I believe the Spanish wikipedia has had an article about Fuentes for the better part of a year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gottretteunsalle (talk • contribs) 02:16, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are referring to this source (which describes his behavior as attention seeking) and this TV appearance which was apparently a five-minute segment in a longer work. None of the rest of your comments are relevant to an AFD. We are interested in reliable sources and policy-based arguments, and the existence of other articles is not a deciding factor. His popularity is only relevant to the extent is is supported by reliable, independent sources. Grayfell (talk) 04:24, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Most articles related to Nick Fuentes are about the Turning Point USA protests; I suggest utilizing the "Controversy" section of the Turning Point USA article, adding a subsection about the series of incidents (i.e. "Clashes with the far-right") and the role of Nick Fuentes. Outside of his antagonism towards TPUSA (and TPUSA attendees such as Ben Shapiro), Nick Fuentes is only mentioned by local news or in passing. Charlie Kirk, who is both more influential and well-known than Nick Fuentes, does not have his own article. Cherio222 (talk) 03:42, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems notable to me. The fox news source seems like it contributes to notability,[1] Additionally, there is the daily dot [2] (both the article as well as the 5 minute segment in the MTV documentary), both of which IMO contribute to notability. Both Fox News and the Daily Dot are generally considered reliable sources. There are also a number of other borderline sources available in the news even with a cursory glance. We don't have to like him, but he does appear to pass the threshold of GNG. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 22:49, 5 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.