Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Crowder

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. As pointed out, none of the secondary sources currently meet our notability guidelines. If some should be unearthed, please contact me or any other admin to have the article userfied for possible reinstatement. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Crowder

[edit]
Steven Crowder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I put a proposed deletion on the article because I do not feel its subject is notable enough and there are no independent references for the article. All of the references have been created by the subject himself, and I was unable to find any independent references myself. This proposed deletion was removed by an anonymous user who did not give any edit summary or provide any sources. Concerns about a lack of references have been raised in the article's talk page. Rogerthat94 (talk) 06:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What specific Notability criteria does this personality violate? If Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks, an arguably marginal personality on the left consigned mostly to satellite radio, merits a Wikipedia page, then Steven Crowder - who is similarly popular on the right from his Web, talk-radio and Fox News appearances - certainly does. Just because you've never heard of someone (or obviously don't consume the media they are prominent on) does not meet they violate Notability guidelines. Crowder is a popular conservative comedian and commentator and his bio is an appropriate Wikipedia contribution. As far as referencing goes, there are independent sources out there that can confirm the details of the article; I can add them if no one else is willing to do the research. Keep. --SchutteGod (talk) 14:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of this article does not fit under any of the Wikipedia:Notability (people) guidelines. I understand he has done work for some substantial organizations but I have not found any evidence that he himself meets any of the criteria for a Wikipedia page. Two wrongs do not make a right... If you believe another article does not belong on Wikipedia, you can propose its deletion, but the notability guidelines are used to determine what belongs here and what does not. I have tried to find independent sources to credit the subject and the information in this article, but I was unable to find anything. Please provide me with any independent sources that you can. Rogerthat94 (talk) 09:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have been following Crowder's career as a political pundit and entertainer for several years. He has a tremendous following in conservative circles, and is a frequent guest on nationally syndicated radio (e.g., Dennis Miller, Hannity) and TV programs (Red Eye, Fox & Friends). I believe he merits a wiki page for his prominence in popular media and the widespread recognition of his talents. Just because Rogerthat94 isn't familiar with Crowder—or possibly dislikes his politics—is no reason to delete the page. Trackerseal (talk) 04:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the notability criteria does he qualify under? Could you provide third party soruces for any of the information in the article? If most of Crowder's work has been for a specific news organization, perhaps a solution could be to redirect this page to a section about Crowder on one of those organization's articles.Rogerthat94 (talk) 05:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
His Youtube videos regularly get tens of thousands of views, he has been a contributor on the highest rated cable news show in their time slots, Hannity and Red Eye, was Master of Ceremonies at CPAC, worked with PJTV, and posts at Big Hollywood, to name a few things he is known for. The reality is that he is well known in conservative circles, as this list proves, and I suspect that you just don't like him. However, political or personal dislike of a person should not be the reason for deleting them. If wikipedia were to delete this page based on that basis, it would open a very dangerous door to political censorship which I'm sure both the left and right would prefer not to tread.
I understand that he has definitely accomplished things, but nothing he has done falls under Wikipedia's notability criteria. Remember, Wikipedia is a place for encyclopedic content; not a place to advertise. If he has done work for an organization that is notable enough for an article, include information about him there. Regardless of whether I know about or like Mr. Crowder, I am maintaining a neutral position on that in my reasoning for this article's deletion. This is not a proposed deletion based on bias. Every article on Wikipedia is on a subject which fits under the same notability criteria; that's about as unbiased as it gets. No one is saying that this deletion is a form of censorship. If you want to take information about Mr. Crowder and add it to an article that does fit under the notability criteria (such as Fox News or CPAC), you're welcome to do so. I have proposed this deletion as a result of the subject lacking the notability required for a Wikipedia article; nothing more. The fact that nobody has been successful in finding any secondary sources further proves this point. Rogerthat94 (talk) 06:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability has not been established - lack of significant coverage in reliable, third party sources. Also, a couple of comments: The comparison upthread to Cenk Uygur isn't really applicable, given that Uygur anchors a daily show on a major television network (MSNBC), and nobody seems to be asserting that Crowder has that kind of notability. Also, please try to remember to assume good faith - there is no reason at all to believe that this nomination is motivated by politics or personal dislike. Dawn Bard (talk) 03:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not recall a deletion petition that was posted on Cenk Uygurs wikipedia entry when he was just posting Youtube videos, but feel free to prove this observation wrong. As for the notability criteria, quote, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability"; here is Steven's imdb page, here is his BigHollywood biography, here is his PJTV profile, an interview with Dennis Miller and here is a PR newswire piece on one of his films. He is notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RileyHudson (talk • contribs) 18:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I shouldn't have even replied to the comment about Uygur above - the bottom line is that whether or not Cenk's page exists or was ever nominated for deletion is completely irrelevant here. On the sources, Big Hollywood, PJTV and PR Newswire are not 3rd party, and nothing there amounts to significant coverage. My !vote remains unchanged. Thanks, Dawn Bard (talk) 19:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, conservative commentators when starting out have a higher standard to attain than liberal ones; I see. Thanks for clarifying, dawn. Whether you agree or not, impartiality and fairness should be one of wikipedias strengths and to effect that, comparisons of how some personalities are treated depending on their political persuasion is certainly valid and applicable here. If a liberal is treated more favorably than a conservative, or vice versa, how can that be considered fair? As I have provided many secondary source links to evidence of Steven Crowders notability, I would ask whether there is any legitimate reason to delete this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.174.242.243 (talk) 20:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are completely misrepresenting my position. Please don't do that. Note that nobody's reasons for deletion say anything about the fact that Crowder is politically right wing. Thank you, Dawn Bard (talk) 21:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If someone had submitted Cenk Uygur's page to AfD before he was notable enough for an article, his page would probably have been deleted as well. The notability criteria exists to eliminate the exact double standard you're accusing Wikipedia of imposing. None of those links you submitted qualify as secondary sources. Wikipedia defines secondary sources as "second-hand accounts, at least one step removed from an event. They rely on primary sources for their material, often making analytic or evaluative claims about them. For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research. Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context. A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but if it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences." In addition to the links Dawn pointed out, If you click around the IMDB page you can see that it was submitted from Crwoder's own website which makes it a primary source. The interview videos you have posted are obviously primary sources as well. My request for at least one secondary source still stands. The reasons the article should be deleted are still lack of notability and secondary sources. Rogerthat94 (talk) 21:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But someone didn't submit Cenk Uygurs page, which is exactly my point. Someone did submit this one. This is a double standard. The notability criteria would seem to be a safegaurd against pointless or exagerated articles. He works for two very popular websites, has been a guest with audiences in the millions on Hannity and the hundreds of thousands in Red Eye, and the links I posted are to reputable secondary sources. Your criticism about imdb does not count, as it was only the biography that was provided by Steven Crowders website, not his list of accomplishments and credits, that speaks for itself. As for Dawn Bard, you tried to have Sister Hazel, a band with a gold and a platinum album, several movie soundtrack credits and with a massive following deleted; how good could your deletion judgement be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RileyHudson (talk • contribs) 00:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm reluctant to get so off topic here, but I am being attacked and I feel compelled to defend myself. My editing history is being misrepresented here in order to question my judgement, and I do not appreciate it. My single edit to the Sister Hazel entry was to add article improvement tags [1] in 2009, which is not at all the same thing as trying to have it deleted. In fact, article improvement tags are being proposed below as a way of keeping and improving the Steven Crowder article. Anyone having any further concerns about my prior edits should feel free to initiate a discussion on my talk page; this is not really a good venue for that. Thank you, Dawn Bard (talk) 16:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that nobody submitted the article on Uygur to AfD has nothing to do with Wikipedia's policy or the notability guidelines. If I had seen Uygur's page before he was notable enough for an article, I would have submitted it as well. The fact that I wasn't aware of his page until after he was notable is not a double standard. An article about a subject without enough notability is a pointless article, since it only really applies to a small number of people (in this case Crowder's fans) and generally has a lot of unverifiable information (which is true with this article). That's why the notability guidelines are so strict. I understand you believe Steven Crowder is accomplished and you believe your links are reputable secondary sources, but as it has been explained to you above, Wikipedia's notability guidelines and source definitions state otherwise. I personally don't know where IMDB got that list from, but the fact that part of the article was submitted by Steven Crowder's own website disqualifies that source from being independent of the subject. Even with that list, that is still not enough notability to merit a separate Wikipedia page for Steven Crowder. I again extend you the challenge of finding an independent source on Steven Crowder, such as the references on Cenk Uygur's reference section. Until you are able to do that, I maintain my position that the subject of this article is not notable enough to have a page on Wikipedia. Also, please refrain from personal attacks. Rogerthat94 (talk) 01:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He's an actor with legitimate credits and a fairly popular political pundit. 5minutes (talk) 00:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He did VO work in some Arthur specials, starred in "3 Needles", "The Covenant", and "To Save a Life". While one could argue which one of those qualifies as "notable", the fact is that he's been acting in films that have achieved both limited and wide releases consistently for over 10 years. Additionally, his punditry on major news outlets and websites would qualify him as a significant voice among a dedicated cult following. Furthermore - he doesn't meet any points under WP:Notability that would qualify him for deletion. He isn't famous because he knows someone, he's not listed here because of Google hits, he's not notable for only one event, etc. If anything, the Notability guidelines would call for a reasonable re-write or edit, if any action at all, but honestly, I think the article establishes his notability fairly well. Either way - deletion is an overreaction under the notability guidelines. 5minutes (talk) 17:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • But he has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" as is further proved by the fact that nobody has been able to provide any independent published sources and I have been unable to find them myself. A rewrite would not help improve the reliability and the quality of Wikipedia, unless such sources are found. Additionally, no credentials you have stated fall under the criteria of "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions," or any other criteria for an article on a living entertainer. Arthur is only one show and none of those other works are notable. I have not found any evidence that would qualify him as having "a large fan base or a significant 'cult' following" as he still has less than 50,000 subscribers on YouTube (which is much less than other YouTube personalities that have articles), there are no fan/cult sites dedicated to him, and he has made too few appearances on Fox News to be considered a regular guest. He doesn't meet the criteria for speedy deletion, as there is a case for his notability; that's why I added a proposed deletion and submitted it to AfD. What evidence do you have to support your claim "He isn't famous because he knows someone, he's not listed here because of Google hits"? I have not seen evidence supporting or opposing those claims and I don't see how they affect his notability. I feel that if independent third party sources could be found, there may be a case for an alternate solution, but nobody has found any; thus deletion is an appropriate solution. Rogerthat94 (talk) 21:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Playboy playmates have wiki pages.. Crowder is more notable than any of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.67.236.143 (talk) 02:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I submitted this page to AfD because it didn't fit in the notability criteria, not because it is the least notable page. What notability criteria does Crowder fall under? Nobody has pointed out how he is considered notable, according to Wikipedia's criteria. Rogerthat94 (talk) 03:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The logical thing to do here seems simple. Steven Crowder is notable as has been proven by several secondary sources that I have posted, from imdb to PJTV, to Big Hollywood, Dennis Miller Show etc, as well as in others. As deletion seems entirely unreasonable at this point, given the evidence, I agree with the poster who suggested an extension or cleanup of the article. This would seem to be the most fair approach. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RileyHudson (talk • contribs) 18:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm chiming in on this to add my vote to keep the Article. I just saw one of Crowder's videos (a good one) on YouTube. Since he's a right winger, he is definitely not someone I would follow regularly. That said, I saw your notice and have read through the discussion and done just a bit of research. Just from what I can see based on a cursory search, I'd you're being pretty unfair. He is all over the right wing media - a Lexis search turned up 183 hits in the last two years, almost all of which were the Steven Crowder at issue here. He is verifiably a frequent contributor at PJTV, a contributor on Biggovernment.com, and a frequent guest on Hannity. Plus there is that IMDB entry, listing 14 show/films in which he has appeared over more than a decade. I'd say that he meets the notability criteria for entertainers in that he clearly has a significant fan base, and he has had a significant presence in both film and TV. And we are, after all, talking about keeping or deleting his Wikipedia entry. Given that Wikipedia has room for a lengthy entry on Milhouse Van Houten, and a somewhat less lengthy article on the likes of Siuan Sanche, I'd think they could retain a similar length article on someone who actually exists and is of some note.

The argument for deletion seems to be that he doesn't meet the notability criteria, and this argument is grounded in the claim that most of the references to him are "secondary" sources as opposed to "primary" sources. Are not the verifiable appearances he has made on TV and the internet and in live venues over the years sufficient "primary" sources? What would Rogerthat94 consider to be a sufficient "primary" source? -- Lloyd S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.102.231.183 (talk) 22:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • You are confusing primary and secondary sources. Articles need to be referenced with a significant basis in independent published secondary sources to maintain the format, quality, and verifiability of Wikipedia. The type of source that would satisfy this criteria would be an article in a publication (which was researched under editorial control) that was published by someone who is independent of the subject. Examples of this for other actors are articles about a film they are in (written independently), which give them significant coverage, or an article about their career. As no such sources have been provided (and I have been unable to find through many pages of google searches on the subject), I maintain that the most appropriate solution is to delete the article. No one is concerned that articles are taking too much space on Wikipedia's servers, but articles like this one have lots of unverifiable information and this can lead to problems. Rogerthat94 (talk) 00:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Couple of Side Points and a Proposal

[edit]

First - I do not, at this time, believe that the proposal for deletion has been done in bad faith, i.e. it does not appear to be politically motivated. If we are honest with ourselves, a lot of articles do get inappropriately edited or deleted, or inappropriately defended by those with political agendas. While I can't peer into Rogerthat94's brain, based on his contributions to Wikipedia, he doesn't appear to be pursuing an agenda. He may be - I may be wrong, but the appearance is not there, IMO. I commend him for attempting to keep politics out of this discussion.

Second - these types of proposals are common. Often, someone feels that some person isn't notable enough for whatever reason to have a page on Wikipedia. Rogerthat's earlier propsed afd was successful because he found a person (Jenna Rose) who DID miss the notability guidelines because they were famous for making a couple of videos on Youtube. One day, Ms. Rose may be popular enough, but as it stands, her attachment to the ARK bunch and her "Jeans" video on YouTube just weren't enough to meet those guidelines.

Therefore, what I'd like to suggest is something I mentioned earlier. While Mr. Crowder does have some popularity, enough, I believe, to meet those notability guidelines, but certainly enough to call this AfD into question, I'd like to propose that the AfD be changed out for a and a tag.
  • First - I'd like to commend you on staying civil, assuming good faith, and keeping politics out of your response. I agree that there is a debate that can be had over whether or not his credentials meet the notability criteria, but the fact still remains that no independent sources have been found. Even if his credits did merit notability for an article, a lack of independent sources presents a serious problem in creating encylcopedic content. For example, the current article on Crowder and several of his online profiles state that he was born in Detroit, Michigan, U.S. but his imbd page states that he was born in Grosse Pointe, Michigan, USA. That's only one example of a problem, but there are many more that can arise when there are no independent sources. Remember, Wikipedia is supposed to be a tertiary source. That means that information should be referenced mainly with secondary and independent sources. Even if sources come from a video of Crowder saying something himself; it can be hard to tell if he's being sarcastic or not since he is a comedian. Referencing mostly published independent sources eliminates this problem.
Aside from the lack of credentials, which I know there can be made a case against, the fact that there are no independent references leads me to the position that the most appropriate solution is to delete this article. If Steven Crowder becomes popular enough for multiple reliable secondary sources, that are independent of him and independent of the organizations he works for, to be published and amount to significant coverage, I would agree that a separate Wikipedia article for him would be appropriate. However, at the current time, no such sources exist and I feel that there isn't really a case to me made for an alternate solution. If you are successful in providing enough independent sources that amount to significant coverage, I will withdraw my AfD nomination. Until those sources are provided, I maintain that the most appropriate solution is to delete the article. Rogerthat94 (talk) 21:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If there are no independent references, then the solution is to leave the article up and request that users search for and provide independent references. That's why I believe my solution is preferable to the deletion of an article about a man who is an actor (with verifiable credits in films with wide distribution) and commentator. 5minutes (talk) 17:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with your solution is that it leaves unverifiable information on Wikipedia. I know we disagree about whether or not he is notable enough for an article, but I think you can agree with me that, for the sake of maintaining the quality and reliability of Wikipedia, the best solution is to delete this article and recreate it once independent sources are published. If the article has to be rewritten anyway, there's no harm in waiting until proper sources are published to do so. Rogerthat94 (talk) 20:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No article is perfect from the get-go, but every article subject (no matter how small the article) is required to have a significant coverage in independent published secondary sources for verifiability reasons and to keep Wikipedia, well, an encyclopedia. Improvement tags are meant for articles (that do need work) about subjects for which the correct type of sources do exist; not subjects for which no required sources exist (such as this one). If you feel strongly about having an article about Steven Crowder on Wikipedia (which I'm assuming you do, since you have repeated your position multiple times in this AfD discussion), once an appropriate source is published, create an article based off of that source. At the current time, no such sources exist and thus no information on the subject can be properly verified and deletion is the most appropriate solution. Rogerthat94 (talk) 02:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The logical thing to do here seems simple. Steven Crowder is notable as has been proven by several secondary sources that I have posted, from imdb to PJTV, to Big Hollywood, Dennis Miller Show etc, as well as in others. As deletion seems entirely unreasonable at this point, given the evidence, I agree with the poster who suggested an extension or cleanup of the article. This would seem to be the most fair approach. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RileyHudson (talk • contribs) 18:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have not provided any independent published sources that fall under the criteria that Wikipedia requires. Until such sources are provided, I maintain that the most appropriate solution is to delete the article. Remember, Wikipedia is a place for encylcopedic content that is verifiable, not a place to advertise for Mr. Crowder. You have stated multiple times that you believe he is notable enough for a separate article, but there is a disagreement on that between multiple editors. If independent sources are published in the future and amount to significant coverage, that would be an appropriate time to create an article on him. At the present time, no such sources exist and deletion is the most appropriate solution in order to maintain the quality and verifiability of Wikipedia. Rogerthat94 (talk) 20:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I, and many others, have pointed out the fact that imdb is a reliable source, as are the Dennis Miller show and Big Government.com, to name a few. These certainly are included in the secondary sources guidelines posted. Your unwillingness to acknowledge them doesn't change their status as legitimate secondary sources. You keep mentioning the advertising angle, but the reality is that you would need to know about Steven Crowder in order to find your way here, which would imply prior knowledge. You have not suggested anything that has been stated about Mr. Crowder in this article is false, and so I ask; where is the advertising, false or otherwise? Insistence on deletion in the face of the evidence that has been provided is beginning to smack of something other than legitimate concern for Wikipedia. I'll simply say what I have before; Steven Crowder has been proven notable, via both secondary sources provided by multiple sources on this thread and by the very nature of the debate. Any attempt at this point to delete would run the risk of being tainted with partisanship. No one wants this for Wikipedia or the community it represents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RileyHudson (talk • contribs) 06:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The secondary source definition states: "Secondary sources are second-hand accounts, at least one step removed from an event. They rely on primary sources for their material, often making analytic or evaluative claims about them." The Dennis Miller show link is an interview, which means that it is a primary source (it is not one step removed). The IMDB link was partly submitted by Crowder's own website and it does not list any primary sources. None of the links you have provided were published, researched under editorial control, or independent of the subject. Regardless of whether or not a source is considered reliable or not, the notability guidelines state that the subject of an article must have significant coverage in "multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." No such sources have been provided, and thus I maintain that deletion is the appropriate solution. If such sources existed to prove the notability of Mr. Crowder and provide a framework to create a stub article, your sources would by fine in addition to the independent published sources. Wikipedia articles tend to rank high in google searches, so it is in fact a place people try to advertise on. I mentioned advertising because it is a common reason that people strongly contest AfD in the manner that you have done. You are posing from an account, created the day after I proposed this article for deletion, that has only been used to post long and repeated arguments in this single discussion, so that does raise some suspicions; however, I was not accusing anyone of using this article to advertise anything. As there are no independent published sources on Mr. Crowder, I have no idea what information in this article could be true or not, but his birthplace is something you should certainly clarify. I simply used the possibility of misinformation to illustrate one of the many problems that can arise from keeping an article on a subject which is not covered by any of the said sources that Wikipedia requires every article to be referenced with.
I have stated this multiple times, but you keep insisting on bringing it up, so I'll state it one more time. I am not proposing this article for deletion because I am opposed to any of Steven Crowder's political views. I have not mentioned any reasons remotely relating to this. There are plenty of articles on subjects with conservative viewpoints who are notable, so your arguments of censorship and partisanship are completely invalid. In addition, there have been articles on subjects with liberal viewpoints, who were just as notable as Mr. Crowder (but also not notable enough for an article on Wikipedia) that were deleted. The fact is, I believe Steven Crowder does not have the credentials to make him notable enough for an article (which I admit there is a case to be made against) and there are no independent published secondary sources about him and no one has been able to provide any (your links do not satisfy Wikipedia's source guidelines). Wikipedia represents a community of people who volunteer their time to provide a source of free and reliable information. Almost anyone who has dedicated a significant amount of time to Wikipedia would want an article, which does not reference any reliable published independent sources, to be deleted. No one would have a problem with it being recreated once those source are published, but at the present time the sources do not exist and the best solution is to delete this article. Unless you are able to provide appropriate sources (which fit the criteria, unlike the ones you have repeatedly listed), my position remains the same. Thanks, Rogerthat94 (talk) 07:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And at this point, it appears that your opinion is in the minority. Therefore, would you be willing to replace your deletion tag with my proposed "let's get this article up to snuff" tags? 5minutes (talk) 20:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless you can provide an independent published secondary source, I stand by my position that deletion is the appropriate action. I have no problem with recreating the article once such sources are published. Rogerthat94 (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK. Here's the problems you're going to have. First - you obviously have a different opinion as to what qualifies as a sufficient source. The problem is that this is your opinion, and other users have already pointed out that there are, per Wikipedia guidelines, primary and secondary sources already given. Whether you find them acceptable or not is opinion, not guideline. The other problem you're going to have is that the vote on this deletion currently stands in favor of rejecting the deletion, and while head counts are not enough of a reason to delete, it does indicate that there is no consensus to delete this article. The other issue you're going to have is demanding perfection in an article on a community-driven encyclopedia, where different members of the community have different opinions and different sources. No article is going to be perfect out of the gate, or ever 2-3 years after its creation. It will always need updating, which is why I've suggested the tags I've had. Again - my suggestion is for you to bow out of your suggestion and allow the Wikipedia community to do what the Wikipedia community does. 5minutes (talk) 12:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • My request for independent published secondary sources is in fact a guideline. None of the sources that were given are published, independent of the subject, or fit under that guideline. I am not demanding the article be perfect by any means, I am just requesting an appropriate source. The only valid argument against deletion is that his credentials qualify him for an article under the additional guidelines for an actor (which I disagree with, but it is a valid argument). This is not enough grounds to keep the article without even one proper source. Again, deletion is the appropriate solution unless someone can provide such a source source, but I have searched a lot and found nothing. Rogerthat94 (talk) 19:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Stevencrowder.net (his own site) qualifies as a primary source, as do his biographies on organizations that employ him. 5minutes (talk) 21:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with you. That's why I stated that no independent published secondary sources exist. The notability guidelines state: "Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. 'Sources', for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability." These guidelines state that "Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical sources is unacceptable," and "All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources." No such sources exist; thus, this article should be deleted. It may be recreated if such sources are published. Rogerthat94 (talk) 21:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem isn't a lack of secondary sources, it's that you're rejecting the listed secondary sources for personal reasons. Crowder's notability has already been established - and referenced by multiple sources, both primary and secondary (I've added both in the past 12 hours), both as an actor in multiple roles in wide releases and as a political commentator. One would think that a person concerned with references and accuracy would be inclined to accept the widely-used tags for improvement (which is exactly what a community-editable encyclopedia is about). 5minutes (talk) 22:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only secondary source that I am aware of is the IMDB page and there are multiple problems with it. I have stated them each time it has been brought up in the discussion. My position has nothing to do with any personal reasons and nothing I have stated in this discussion contradicts this. Please remember to assume good faith. I have also stated the correct place for the improvement tags and this article is not one of them; it should be deleted. You are misguided in your analysis of Wikipedia and its community. I would recommend that you read through the documentations on Wikipedia's policies that I have posted through the discussion before responding because many of your arguments are covered in those documents. Thanks, Rogerthat94 (talk) 22:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Make up your mind. You demand secondary sources, and then when they're provided, you say they're not good enough. Primary sources are provided and you jump to the false claim that the page is being used for personal promotion. I suggest that the article be improved, and you demand that the article be near-perfect before it's published. At this point, I want the admins to make a call. I'm done. 5minutes (talk) 23:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are completely misrepresenting my position. I stated a need for proper sources in my original proposal and have stood by that through this entire discussion. I would have no problem leaving the article up to be improved if independent published secondary sources exited, but they don't. I think the fact that nobody has been able to provide a single one is pretty good proof of this. Rogerthat94 (talk) 23:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And secondary sources have been provided. You just don't approve. Again, I'm done. Let the admins do their job. 5minutes (talk) 15:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only secondary source that was provided was the IMDB link and, as I have stated above, this is not a published source or researched under editorial control and it does not amount to significant coverage. It was also partly submitted by the subject's own website, so it is not independent of the subject. No independent published secondary sources exist and deletion is the most appropriate solution. Rogerthat94 (talk) 17:05, 23 June 2011 (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/Steven_Crowder&oldid=1069025409"