Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Obergefell

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. In the sense of "not delete". There is no consensus about whether to keep this as a separate article or to merge it into Obergefell v. Hodges, but that can continue to be discussed on the article talk page. Sandstein 11:45, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Obergefell

[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)

WP:BLP1E of a person who is notable for a specific event, but is already well-covered by that event's article without needing to delve deeper into his private personal life outside of the event. This is referenced entirely to factoids cherrypicked from coverage of the court case itself (along with a few stray primary sources that aren't notability boosters), not to any evidence that his personal life has actually been a subject of coverage in its own right -- and since the existing Obergefell v. Hodges already covers him in the appropriate context, there's no compelling reason why he would need a standalone biographical article to delve more deeply into his childhood or his educational background or his career or his family relationships than the court case's article already does. To be clear, I do believe his name should be retained as a redirect to Obergefell v. Hodges -- but I'm not seeing a convincing reason why it needs to be a separate standalone biographical article that deep-dives into his private life outside of his role in the court case itself. Bearcat (talk) 17:11, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:11, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:11, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:11, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Obergefell v. Hodges; I think the "Recognition" section has some worthwhile material that can go there, but otherwise I agree with the nom. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:07, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge or redirect into the court case. Clear WP:BLP1E. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:43, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - since the SCOTUS case, he's become notable as an activist. Plenty of sources are available about that; see WP:BEFORE. Bearian (talk) 15:06, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We don't keep articles just because somebody generically asserts, without showing any actual evidence, that there are more sources available. WP:NEXIST is not a magic word that instantly sends an AFD discussion to hell just because you say it — it only comes into play if you actually show the evidence. Also,

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:05, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bearian placed a neutral notification at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies on 15:08, 7 October 2019 (UTC). --MarioGom (talk) 08:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bearian. There is plenty of precedent for people who became famous for 1E who use that fame to go on to become notable advocates and campaigners. De Guerre (talk) 06:27, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, De Guerre. See also Edith Windsor for another example. Bearian (talk) 19:01, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Edith Windsor features evidence that she already had some degree of preexisting notability before her court case. It may not necessarily have gotten her all the way over a notability standard in the absence of the court case, but it's still contributory — and Edie Windsor also cites a lot more sources than this does, covering her in the context of a lot more than just the court case alone. That's the difference between her and this: her article is actually showing and sourcing hard evidence that she's more than just a WP:BLP1E, while Obergefell's isn't — all we've got is soft, unproven assertions that he's notable for more than just the court case itself, not hard evidence equivalent to what Windsor's article is showing. Bearcat (talk) 14:52, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was thinking of Walter Mikac, but yes. De Guerre (talk) 07:11, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe selective merge to Obergefell v. Hodges, the case looks notable. --MarioGom (talk) 11:55, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obergefell is an important figure in the history of the Supreme Court as well as an important LGBTQ+ activist. Obergefell's story is widely covered in high school history classrooms and students will frequently use his page for their research Serenewilliams (talk) 17:42, 15 October 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.