Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James McGibney (2nd 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 keep. Thanks everyone for contributing and please remember to assume good faith with my closure. SarahStierch (talk) 02:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James McGibney

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

Closed as no consensus earlier this year, still not notable enough as most of the "notability" comes from self-promotion. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - This article clearly meets Wikipedia standards. A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. This guy has been in the news LOTS of times. I would also point out that McGibney has been featured on Anderson Cooper, ABC Nightline, Extra!, Dr. Phil, Maury Povich, Howard Stern, The View, Good Morning America, and Dr. Drew's Life Changers. Dead Goldfish (talk) 23:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- So where are the sources? Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Try googling the dude's name. He likes to stick his face in the news every time Kate Gosselin starts crying about people being mean to her (which is kinda ironic).^[1] ^[2] Dead Goldfish (talk) 06:40, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Those two sources, for example, are not about McGibney. They're about his site/group. We need multiple, reliable sources about him. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well how about you spend some of YOUR own time googling him and see what you come up with? Bullyville is a one man operation. ^[3] Its not my job to do your job for you. Dead Goldfish (talk) 18:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I have done the legwork, it's why I've nominated it for deletion. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        
        For future reference, it's always best to link to the sources you're citing for your argument. Burden of proof for providing sources lies with those claiming they exist. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:21, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- i agree with all of what Dead goldfish is saying. The article is backed up with multiple independent sources and ive read about this Guy on the news alot.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 16:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - per Dead Goldfish's comments. AceWriterOfFacts (talk) 01:38, 11 December 2013 (UTC) — AceWriterOfFacts (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This seems to be a person only notable for a small group of websites, so this should be incorporated into an article about his projects, or deleted. Gamaliel (talk) 04:13, 23 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:56, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So why is this article constantly being relisted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dead Goldfish (talk • contribs) 02:38, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Standard procedure for discussions with a small number of participants, to encourage more participants to offer their opinions. Gamaliel (talk) 02:50, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. thanks for the info. now I know. Dead Goldfish (talk) 04:08, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Well this seems to be a controversial topic...anyway, I went through all the article's sources, along with others I found online. While many of the given sources only mention McGibney in passing, there are also a combination of multiple independent sources covering him has the main subject matter, including news articles and interviews (Namely Las Vegas Sun, Huffington Post, ABC News, Las Vegas Weekly, Anderson Cooper (archived), & Ars Technica). When combined, the coverage on his court case, activity on Twitter, and controversial company are grounds enough for notability as I see it. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:21, 25 December 2013 (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.

[1] ttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2302557/Anti-bullying-group-rushes-Kate-Gosselins-aide-outing-reality-stars-Twitter-haters-employers.html

[2] ttp://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2013/04/02/anti-bullying-site-exposes-identities-alleged-kate-gosselins-cyber-bullies-to/

[3] ttp://www.examiner.com/article/anti-bullying-group-to-release-names-of-kate-gosselin-twitter-haters

[1]

[2]

[3]