Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Standorf

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. Clearly not enough coverage here, also as pointed out WP:BLP1E. Black Kite (talk) 14:36, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Standorf

[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)

no apparent evidence of notability DGG ( talk ) 22:41, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1) What is the criteria for 'notability' and who considers items 'notable'?

2) One reason that someone may not have heard of this person is that this was 1991 and well before everything was digitized and put online

3) Another reason would also be that perhaps something that goes against the corporate media narrative doesn't encourage them to even cover it? When someone on Wikipedia says 'not notable', then aren't they really saying "I've not seen it in the mainstream corporate run media"?

4) The barebones of the article are there, it can be fleshed out laterApeholder (talk) 00:58, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Apeholder (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

@Apeholder:, Delete, the criteria for notability are covered by Wikipedia:Notability. From the current information provided, it doesn't appear to meet those guidelines. In addition, the article seems to have a sense of unproven conspiracy theory to it, your 3rd previous statement, while maybe not meant in this way or misinterpreted on my part, seems to give this sense as well. - Navarre0107 (talk) 03:03, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Navarre0107: Keep, by your logic, then nothing outside of the narrow field of the mainstream media should never be on here. Nothing reported from Wikileaks, leaks before they hit CNN, etc. You do realise that sometimes big stories start out at smaller sources, sometimes for quite sometime before the mainstream media may decide to run it? Clearly if you've not heard of it, then it's invalid? StrangeApeholder (talk) 03:45, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Apeholder:, but, by both the article and your own notation, these events occurred in the last decade of the 20th century, nearing 20 years ago. If this had any notability to it, it would have already been placed within reports of some sort. Those reports don't have to be within mainstream media, but they have to be at least notable reports of scientific, cultural, or newsworthy value of some sort. Personally, as based upon my understanding of the rules of Wikipedia, this article does not apply to those standards. I encourage you to edit and rewrite the page in order to prove its notability; however, at the current time, I don't see it. - Navarre0107 (talk) 05:11, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG per [1], [2].----Pontificalibus 15:43, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - arguendo that this was a conspiracy, it's not a notable Conspiracy theory. There's been no ongoing coverage, no government reports, no leaks, nor public investigations. In a conspiracy-filled Washington, this is run of the mill. Bearian (talk) 15:12, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:02, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete coverage of death does not rise above routine.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:08, 15 September 2019 (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.

Alan Standorf

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.