Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Carlin (writer)

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 delete. I've elected not to Redirect to George Carlin as suggested, because there is no content on Patrick Carlin there. This close shouldn't be taken to stand in the way of a future redirect if a suitable target becomes available. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:43, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Carlin (writer)[edit]

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

Despite being known as a humorist/writer, fails WP:GNG, WP:ENTERTAINER, WP:AUTHOR due to lack of significant coverage from reliable third-party sources. The only reliable sources on him are primary sources (i.e. interviews, self-written pieces) and those written by those closely associated with him (namely his own brother). Since most coverage on him mainly pertains to his brother George Carlin, this article should be redirected to that or deleted. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 03:27, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hardly any WP:SECONDARY sources discuss Patrick in depth. The High Times interview starts with a couple of paragraphs of editorial biography about Patrick. It's a good source. The problem is that WP:BASIC needs a few more of these, at least one, but that's all there is. I think we should delete the article because the George Carlin biography does not tell the reader anything about Patrick, so a redirect is not useful. Binksternet (talk) 06:57, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think 1) the article clearly discusses Patrick's distinct accomplishments and 2) the sources are broadly mis-characterized as unreliable by the proponent. A lot of sources also include interview content amidst the story, when an interview is available. Getting an interview often inspires the rest of the article. He wrote books, sources prove the books legitimately exist and are for sale. "Significant" Yes, Patrick's life accomplishments are greatly overshadowed by his brother. Some are associated to his more famous brother. Do we remove or merge the other Jackson family members because Michael was so notable? No. A little google shows a little more which I will add to the article. You know, you can google too before you needlessly attack articles. Trackinfo (talk) 07:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I spent a good while trying to find solid sourcing via Google. I came up with nothing new—the only good secondary source was High Times. Especially barren was Google books. That said, I will be happy to change my mind if somebody's Google foo is stronger than mine, and they are able to bring another high quality source or two. Binksternet (talk) 09:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For a man of Patrick Carlin's age, the absence of coverage in books is a red flag. Binksternet (talk) 09:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I should also add that WP:WAX (What about X) is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. The Jackson family is an entirely separate case, anyway. His own books are self-published sources, which do not add to notability. What he needs to meet the notability criteria is multiple reliable third-party sources. Are there multiple sources on him? Yes. Are they reliable? Yes. Are they third-party? No. Self-written pieces and interviews are primary sources, and pieces written by family, friends, and other close affiliations are not third-party either. The only third-party sources available on him are unreliable. Keep in mind that per WP:MASK and WP:HITS, the raw number of sources that mention a subject is not by itself an indicator of notability. This is because one or more of the following can apply 1) ref is unreliable 2) ref only mentions subject in brief 3) ref is not third-party. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 15:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. - Hirolovesswords (talk) 17:12, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 16:01, 28 May 2014 (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.