Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frosty Wooldridge (3rd 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 delete. Stifle (talk) 17:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frosty Wooldridge

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

Nonnotable journalist. Plenty of note in conspiracy circles, but nothing significant enough to apparently support a biographical article, save an attack piece about him from the SPLC. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:20, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 21:49, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 21:49, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 21:49, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm amazed this passed two previous AFDs considering the awful "keep" rationale used in them. The subject fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BIO generally. A bunch of ultra-conservative blogs do not equate to reliable and verifiable secondary sources. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 21:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The SPLC page is the only third-party source I could find, and that's just not enough. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 22:32, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A more complex case than at first appears. A HighBeam search turns up some three dozen hits, which lead to assorted newspaper articles about his anti-immigrant activism (some of them substantial, others not so much): [1] [2] [3][4][5][6]. But there are also positive reviews of his book about teens coping with their father's death [7] or [8] or [9],[10]~~[11]~~; a 2005 Christian Science Monitor article about his unusually long and widely-circulated Christmas letters [12] or [13]; and a completely apolitical biography entry from 2003 Contemporary Authors [14]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:19, 24 December 2013 (UTC) Corrected one of the links. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:38, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG. Sources found by Arxiloxos looks like someone notable. -- GreenC 08:22, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a single one of those links is about Wooldridge save Contemporary Authors, which is a database/directory of authors. How does he pass the GNG? Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:20, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I disagree with that assessment of the sources. -- GreenC 19:08, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Can you expand on why? Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Because the sources contain significant coverage of the person and/or works, per WP:GNG. Some more than others. -- GreenC 21:44, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Where is this "significant coverage," specifically? Thargor Orlando (talk) 04:18, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 02:16, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero | My Talk 07:05, 14 January 2014 (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.