Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roosh

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. Consensus has been established DGG ( talk ) 01:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Roosh

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

Does not meet WP:BIO for notability. All his books are self published, no press in mainstream media outside of a few blog posts. PearlSt82 (talk) 00:06, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Prominent Arab-American "sex tourist," it would seem SEE BLOG POST but a GNG failure, serving as the subject of a few hobbyist blog posts and the author of a few obscure pickup guides notwithstanding. Carrite (talk) 00:41, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Huffington Post, National Review, and Southern Poverty Law Center aren't exactly "a few hobbyist blog posts". That looks more like significant coverage. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to take this comment seriously when Roosh is not an "Arab-American" and your source rebuttal post is indeed a "hobbyist" post. In the past week there have been vandalism attempts on the page with complete misinformation and misattribution. Lapastillaroja (talk) 12:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Agree with Amatulić. Star767 (talk) 02:18, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article has more primary sources than most other author pages on Wikipedia, with media references from eight countries. Notability guidelines should not be based on whether you agree with the person's views or not. Lapastillaroja (talk) 12:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My reasons for listing under notability are not because I disagree with the person's views, but because I don't feel the mentions in the op-ed blog posts provide adequate notability as listed in WP:BIO for authors. This particular user potentially has Wikipedia:Conflict of interest with this subject.PearlSt82 (talk) 13:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article has more secondary sources than quite a few existing articles. These can be considered reliable sources, especially when there is a byline and when more than one reliable source is used: Reason (magazine) reason.com is the website of this magazine, Huffington Post, National Review, Business Insider, Southern Poverty Law Center, Washington City Paper. Many "respectable" reporters post online blogs. Star767 (talk) 14:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The blog and media coverage is regional, not national, not to mention highly inconsequential. Previous version of the page was a vanity page, making its recent comeback also suspect. The Washington City Paper - clearly regional interest (and one mention only). The Huff Po coverage is not Huff Po - it is "Huffington Post DC", and remember that Huff Po is not editor solicited content, it is simply user-supplied. The National Review article notably is mocking the Southern Poverty Law Center for taking interest in someone so inconsequential as Roosh. SPLC itself is not a third party source but a primary source. 68.5.176.101 (talk) 18:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not a valid reason to delete. Neither Wikipedia:Notability nor Wikipedia:Notability (people) say anything about requiring national coverage. The only guideline that does, to my knowledge, is WP:CORP, which relates to companies not people, and that guideline requires "at least regional" coverage. That's what we have here, not counting the coverage in multiple countries, which may or may not be reliable (I haven't checked). ~Amatulić (talk) 00:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 15:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Does this wanne-be-famous Roosh deserve to be notable? Clearly, no. However, that's not the question. Wikipedia, within reasonable limits, does not take a judgemental position on content. The issue is, does Roosh meet GNG? Equally clearly, yes. Ekstrabladet in Denmark has nationwide circulation, and he managed to annoy the Danes enough to get coverage that makes him notable. "National" (or regional) coverage doesn't just apply to the U.S., it's equally so for any country. Getting to be famous by being outstandingly offensive is not a deserving tactic, but it does work. David_FLXD (Talk) 18:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Good deal of secondary sources listed already, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 16:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well-referenced article showing significant coverage from numerous reliable sources. Don't discount them just because they're from parts of the world you don't care about. – Smyth\^talk 21:56, 14 March 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.