Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nate Whigham
- 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. While the subject is mentioned in numerous items of coverage, consensus is that the mentions do not add up to significant coverage in reliable sources, as opposed to incidental or trivial coverage. Mkativerata (talk) 22:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nate Whigham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable person; sole source essentially a blog; apparently done by SPA as part of a movie promotion. PhGustaf (talk) 21:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
this AfD was mentioned in an edit summary on the Tea Party movement page
- Delete In the current format, this article should probably be deleted. A quick Google Search only turned up 115 items with Nate Whigham and Tea party. When I looked at the hits, I couldn't find anything that was more that trivial mentions in reliable sources. Almost everything said about him is A) He's voted for Obama B) he's now helping organize the Georgia Tea Party (but not capacity or role) C) he's been interviewed because of his stance/race. Provide some meaningful sources (the Cavuto interview might be a start) and I could be pursuaded to change my !vote, but as is, this isn't looking like a keeper.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC) NOTE: Saw the Cavuto interview, he wasn't being interviewed because he himself is notable, but rather because he helped organize an event. The Cavuto interview does next to nothing towards establishing his notability per WP's guidelines.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 01:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per Balloonmand, WP:BIO and WP:NPF. I've been trying to find significant mentions of Whigham, without success. --Ronz (talk) 22:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- N/A0 00:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- N/A0 00:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- N/A0 00:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- DO NOT DELETE I have Googled "nate whigham" and came up with more than 3,000 entries. Nate is a Tea Party organizer. It is plain and simple to see that through credible sources all over the internet, including ABC news.
- I don't know how to sign yet, Divageek2010 (talk) 14:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)Divageek2010[reply]
- These are the same type of mentions I've found as well. At best, we have a quote from him. Absolutely nothing significant about him though. --Ronz (talk) 14:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know how to sign yet, Divageek2010 (talk) 14:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)Divageek2010[reply]
Not too mention his participation in panel discussions as a Tea Party grass roots activist right along side Jenny Beth Martin the Tea Party Leader: http://www.montgomerynews.com/articles/2010/04/26/glenside_news_globe_times_chronicle/news/doc4bd612aeaf891979120489.txt http://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-politics-elections/jenny-beth-martin-the-522344.html ~Divageek2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Divageek2010 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Montgomery News article just says he's appearing at a panel discussion. The AJC one doesn't mention him at all. You need references that specifically support every point made in the article. I respect your opinion that he's important, but that opinion isn't a basis for an article. PhGustaf (talk) 16:50, 9 October 2010 (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.