Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louis Rossmann

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. Sandstein 08:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Rossmann

[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)

A few valid sources and additional sources searched by Google do not provide an in-depth background info for this person. Furthermore, WP:DEL#7. Nightvour (talk) 19:15, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nightvour (talk) 19:15, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable Youtuber.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:13, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:13, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep I am the creator of this article. I would not have created this article if I feel it did not pass general notability guideline, which I truly and firmly believe that it does. Let me back up my statements. Louis Rossmann has received substantial secondary coverage in the following reliable sources. Vice Fox Business MS Power user CBC--which did an indepth review of Apple with Louis Rossmann, which delved in depth. 9to5mac Apple Insider The Guardian NBC News iPhone Canada 9to5mac. Boing Boing Washington Post Foreign Newspapers even. Louis Rossmann has definitely met the general notability guideline. In addition to the sources I cited above that mention him in depth, Louis Rossmann is also frequently mentioned in far more sources in passing, and is widely sought for input on matters pertaining to Apple and the repairability of their products. It's also established that once a subject is notable, they do not need to have consistent coverage to maintain said notability, per WP:NTEMP. Tutelary (talk) 02:21, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While there are sources related to this said person, these articles are just notable events for this person regarding right to repair movement. Also, the biographical article does not include verifiable sources nor its significance pertaining to the background of this said person. Nightvour (talk) 02:54, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nightvour, they are high quality reliable sources, and discuss the subject in depth. The subject very clearly meet the notability guideline. I acknowledge the article could be improved, but articles for deletion is not intended to be used for article cleanup. I also believe that stating such could mean that you didn't consider the before aspect of filing a deletion request, specifically C1: If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD. I also dispute your statement of Also, the biographical article does not include verifiable sources | Everything appears to be cited properly and easily verifiable, except for the WP:LEAD, which is not required to have citations, as it's just the summary of the article itself. Tutelary (talk) 03:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately most of the sources in the article contains social media sites, most notably YouTube. Since YouTube is not a credible source, the information could be disputed and be subject to deletion. This fails WP:V and WP:SURMOUNTABLE is not a policy, therefore it should not be treated as a rule. Pardon my English. Nightvour (talk) 04:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube is considered a WP:PRIMARY source, and it is easy to misuse, but that does not mean it cannot be used. I do not believe that utilizing Youtube to confirm a birthday of a subject is misuse, nor using a Vimeo link to confirm that they stream repairs on that platform. The article needs work, assistance researching and finding sources, not deletion, since the subject is very clearly notable. Tutelary (talk) 04:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And yet the article had 2 years to fix verified sources. Plenty of time to include sources then, however none of the sources have been produced nor verified during that time. Nightvour (talk) 06:50, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not cleanup. The claim that Rossmann's own YouTube channel is not a credible source for himself is bizarre. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:RSPYT and WP:SELFPUB. If the YouTube sources (primary) are backed up with secondary and tertiary sources such as a book or an article detailing about his background life, then the article has no need to be deleted. Nightvour (talk) 22:32, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep only if the article can be given proper citations before the end of the month. Louis has done a fair bit of political work and probably deserves a page due to his activism alone, he's worked with major outlets such as Vice to both consult on right-to-repair issues and to provide footage, but without citations or further detailing on his activism this article might as well not exist. It's the only thing he'd deserve an article for, outside of that he's just a small YouTuber and the owner of a repair shop obscure outside of New York. 109.76.87.125 (talk) 09:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I know Louis Rossmann isn't going to be getting any Christmas cards from Apple Fanboys for calling a spade a spade, but he has certainly attracted enough attention to be in the news regularly, particularly in his fight against anti-Right-To-Repair lobbyists. I've expanded the article a bit. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Ritchie333, and Rossman has coverage in the maker community as well.→StaniStani 04:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, leaning keep for now. I don't think he quite meets the line for WP:ANYBIO#2 or similar criteria like WP:ENT#3 but there is a lot of coverage about him. While most of it seems to be trivial, there is some significant coverage in articles like 9to5mac (2016) cited above, and he has received coverage for events he is involved in. I'll keep looking, but I haven't found the WP:THREE sources that pushes me clear of the WP:BASIC line yet. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:46, 30 May 2020 (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.