Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reggie Shuford

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. Michig (talk) 08:26, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reggie Shuford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

WP:BLP of the executive director of a state-level chapter of a national organization. As always, this is a claim of notability that can get a person into Wikipedia if he's shown as the subject of enough reliable source coverage about him to clear WP:GNG, but not one that automatically guarantees him an article just because he exists. But four of the six sources here are just glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things or people, and another one is a Q&A interview (which isn't a GNG-assisting source because it represents the subject talking about himself rather than being written about by other people) on a podcast (which never count as notability-supporting sources at all) -- which means there's only one source here that actually counts for anything at all toward getting him over GNG, and one source isn't enough by itself. Bearcat (talk) 01:48, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:13, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:13, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:13, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some additional sources that are not (yet) in the article Philly Mag profile Local TV news profile CSPAN Appearences Billhpike (talk) 05:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All three of those links are to the same article, and that article is another Q&A interview in which he's talking about himself rather than being objectively written about by other people. Bearcat (talk) 06:22, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected link Billhpike (talk) 06:46, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of the corrected links bolsters anything. "Local TV news profile" is the Q&A interview on a podcast that I already addressed in my nomination statement because it was already present in the article, and a directory of C-SPAN appearances is not a notability-assisting source either. A person gets a Wikipedia article by being the subject of reliable source coverage about him, not by speaking about other subjects in video clips or about himself in any context, and podcasts are not reliable sources. Bearcat (talk) 07:18, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a profile should be disallowed under WP:GNG because the subject cooperated with the journalist and provide quotes. Similarly, I don't think that there should be a bar on using profile to establish WP:GNG just becuase the author chose to present the profile in the form of an editted interview.Billhpike (talk) 23:04, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not available online Nark, Jason (September 15, 2014). "Chilln' wit' Reggie Shuford – The freedom to leisure – ACLU boss breaks from making and taking calls". Philadelphia Daily News. p. 19. Billhpike (talk) 06:13, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- I am happy that we are debating the reasonably high standard for justification of inclusion of a BLP. Before we dissect the merits of the individual sources, let's look at the man who is the subject. He graduated a previously all-white high school -- mildly supportive, but not conclusive. His appearances have met the standard for coverage by C-SPAN since 2000 -- strongly supportive, but not conclusive. Appointment to Exec Director of a state ACLU (likely one of fifty-one similar organizations) -- strongly supportive, and in my view, sufficient for inclusion. His participation in (and press mentions of) debates over national matters of equity -- strongly supportive, but not in themselves sufficient. He is thanked in ten academic articles -- supportive. His awards are supportive, but not conclusive. My personal view: Shuford is notable in his position as Exec Director of this organization. The debate might better be framed generally: is his role notable? In my view it is as notable as a full professor, elected official in a municipality of over 100,000, or named character in a TV show.
  As to notability generally, Shufurd seems to meet the requirements: the reader requires no synthesis to conclude the subject is notable. Shuford has been in the public eye for seventeen years.
  The KYW profile is a straight-up analysis by the writer of a recognized outlet. Interviews by Wee and Philly (Philadelphia Enquirer) include no analysis, but the city editor's choice to send a reporter to interview him is indicative of notability. It appears that the gist of the argument to delete is that we have only one analysis that is not an interview transcript. A Philadelphia Daily News profile may be found on the talk page. Subject meets. Rhadow (talk) 13:58, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is established by being the subject of coverage written in the third person by somebody other than the topic himself. It cannot be supported by interviews (whether in video or print) in which he's talking about himself; it cannot be supported by television appearances in which he's speaking about something else; it cannot be supported by glancing namechecks of his existence in media coverage about someone or something else; it cannot be supported by being "thanked" in the acknowledgements section of academic articles; it cannot be supported by podcasts regardless of who the podcaster is or isn't. And there is no notability claim that any person can make that exempts them from having to have reliable source coverage just because it's been claimed — even a president of the United States wouldn't get to have an article if he somehow managed to hold the role without ever actually being discussed in reliable sources. Notability can be established in only one way: by showing that he's been the subject of enough coverage in reliable sources, written in the third person by somebody other than himself, to pass WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 15:01, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat says, "Notability is established by being the subject of coverage written in the third person by somebody other than the topic himself." The Philadelphia Daily News article and the KYW piece meet that standard and the requirement for multiple reliable sources. A third person profile piece does not preclude the use of quotes, as long as the entire piece is not a transcript, no? Rhadow (talk) 15:38, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The KYW piece plainly identifies itself as a transcript of an interview on a podcast. Bearcat (talk) 15:43, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It strikes me we are splitting hairs here. The KYW piece appears as a standalone piece written in the third person. Yes, it includes quotes. Does the existence of a 22 minute video interview that was background negate the written piece? Is your objection to the article based on the intrinsic notability of the subject and his role, or is it procedural, based on the voices of the references? Rhadow (talk) 15:57, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete state directior of a national organization is not notable. We need substantial, widespread coverage outside the local market. PDN is local to this individual. The KYW piece is a transcript.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:59, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- Just so I understand -- if the same standard for sources were applied to Virgin Islands Daily News, then the article about Danny Cevallos, another Philadelphia lawyer, would also be a candidate for deletion? Rhadow (talk) 14:28, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment And similarly for another Philadelphia lawyer, Judith Chomsky, the unattributed reference from the Asha Centre would be discounted, and the reference from Philadelphia Weekly would be discounted as a local source?
  I anticipate a pointer to WP:OTHERSTUFF, so I ask you to read OTHERSTUFFISBULLSHIT. Rhadow (talk) 14:43, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment and similarly for the notability of a single store hamburger stand in Wall Township NJ Circus Drive-In which relies on New Jersey Monthly and the Asbury Park Press. Rhadow (talk) 21:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Shuford appears to have significant coverage in numerous independent reliable sources, and unless I'm reading it wrong, that automatically qualifies him under WP:GNG. Srt8 Outta Philly (talk) 19:46, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Shuford has written several articles in law reviews that have received a significant number of citations.[1] Billhpike (talk) 22:17, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Billhpike (talk) 22:54, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think that Shuford's legal writings, which have recieved significant citations, combined with his activism, which recieve significant press coverage, are sufficient to overcome WP:GNG Billhpike (talk) 22:23, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:20, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- I think Rhadow made a good argument on this one.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Found significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources, including the Philadelphia Enquirer, a regional newspaper which, according to its Wiki article, has received nearly 2 dozen Pulitzer Prizes. Philly magazine, which is now a ref in the article, published a Q&A profile. The subject also received a Harvard Law School award as well as a second award from academia. Clearly passes WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 06:41, 22 December 2017 (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.