Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Landeryou (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 no consensus, default to keep. Obviously this was trending strongly toward a delete until the last couple of days, at which point a number of credible and valid keep votes came in and additional sources were provided. Were this to be relisted (which I considered doing given that new info came in late), it's likely this might have ended with an even stronger "keep" sentiment, but I don't think it's worthwhile to bother extending the discussion. It's worth pointing out that the only choice here in my view (after factoring in strength and validity of argument) was between closing as no consensus or "keep" outright, in part because some of the delete comments do not really provide a rationale, and in part because some obviously missed sources when searching for info about the article subject (a lack of familiarity with Australian politics no doubt also played a role).

The concerns mentioned by Robofish in terms of BLP are well taken, particularly as this is a figure of relatively marginal notability who has received some rather negative coverage. At this time we don't have consensus to delete this BLP article in particular or these types of BLPs in general, but the least everyone here can do in the interim is watchlist the article and try to keep it up to snuff going forward. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Landeryou

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

This article was prodded on Nov. 27 with the following rationale: "no credible assertion of notability, no sources supporting basic facts, possible BLP violations." On Dec. 2, User:Rotovia removed the prod with the message "see talk." However, no such discussion was posted on the talk page, then or later. The fact is that the prod was correct: this article makes no credible assertion of notability. He's a right-wing blogger, but those are a dime a dozen; no effort is made to show that he meets our inclusion guidelines for biographies or that his website meets WP:WEB. The majority of material in this article has no citations, and there have already been BLP concerns as well as serious conflicts between the article subject and Wikipedia administrators. This article is unmaintainable crap that we don't need. *** Crotalus *** 15:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to David Gerard Wikimedia blog controversy (only joking), actually delete per nom, the lead "In recent years, he has attracted attention through his website "The Other Cheek: Andrew Landeryou's Blog of Freedom," and VEXNEWS which has been the subject of media comment.[citation needed]" rather says it all. If that's the best this can do.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non notable from internet source check. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems like he's not notable, unless some reliable sources can be provided showing otherwise (can't find anything myself though). Mah favourite (talk) 05:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There has been no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources of this person, at best all you get is a passing mention. This article, if you can dignify it thus, is a complete mess and liable to being problematic. I can see no good policy based reason for keeping it. RMHED (talk) 20:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The blog, Vexnews, is perhaps notable - it is a popular blog that regularly breaks stories that are picked up by the mainstream media - but Landeryou himself is not notable. mkativerata (talk) 00:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia's article on Andrew Landeryou is a waste of disk space. --NE2 02:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (Discussion) 05:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails all criteria at WP:CREATIVE. WWGB (talk) 06:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, VEXNEWS is perhaps notable, but I'm not sure that Landeryou is, beyond the drama that he's caused here. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Question As I asked on the talk page, is this and this about the same person? There is nothing in the article about that. There is a fair number of "Andrew+Landeryou" Gnews hits. --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is the same Andrew Landeryou. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not seeing sufficient evidence of coverage in independent reliable sources for an article on Mr. Landeryou or his blog. I'm not sure what the first comment on this AFD is referring to, but if there's a Wikimedia conflict of interest issue here, all the more reason to delete the article. Robofish (talk) 18:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through the history of this article, I'm amazed to see it existed as a very poorly sourced negative article since 2005. It was only last month that someone bothered to clean it up. For a WP:BLP, and especially one of marginal-to-no notability, this is really not good. Robofish (talk) 19:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems like he's not notable, unless some reliable sources can be provided showing otherwise (can't find anything myself though). Mah favourite (talk) 05:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I've changed my opinion to keep, as a result of the sources produced by Fences and Windows he seems to satisfy WP:GNG. The article needs to be tidied up and these sources added but that is not a reason for deletion. Mah favourite (talk) 16:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He's a long-time political figure who runs one of the more notable political websites in the country. There's a ton of mainstream media sources on the bloke dating back years - it might well deserve a rewrite, but he's pretty clearly notable. Rebecca (talk) 11:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Rebecca. An important figure in Australian student politics, a central player in the Optima scandal that brought down MUSU and among the most notable Australian political bloggers. It would of course need plenty of work. --bainer (talk) 13:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Beyond some ructions in student and Labor faction politics, not notable (he needs to be the *subject* of independent reliable sources, not merely mentioned by them.) Vexnews is clearly not a reliable source, I'm surprised that is even being considered - its own editorial statement contradicts our RS guidelines. Orderinchaos 05:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's notable for being a fugitive from Australia for a year,[1][2] and also for his blog, for which he has been described as notorious.[3] Had an intervention order imposed on him recently due to his blogging:[4]. More on his blogging:[5][6] He seems to only be known for negative things, but that doesn't make his bio a hit piece as it can all be sourced. He's most certainly a public figure. Fences&Windows 01:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, another angry middle-aged blogger. Yawn. And his twittery is humdrum. But immediately above, Fences and Windows manages to show that this one's been in the news for more than one event. So I suppose that he qualifies. Unenthusiastic keep. -- Hoary (talk) 15:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Oh my God, see what they call him when searching by "Andy Landeryou". Abductive (reasoning) 05:14, 12 December 2009 (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.