Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Levi Johnston

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. Based on my interpretation of the consensus here, WP:BLP1E/WP:NOT#NEWS does not apply. As noted many times throughout the discussion, BLP1E applies to low-profile individuals; Mr. Johnston is far from low-profile. Overall, the arguments in favor of retaining the article are stronger than those in favor of deletion, which at times bordered on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This may be revisited in a few months, once the dust settles a bit. On a side note, I'm closing this a bit early, as it's clear that the result isn't going to change. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Levi Johnston

Levi Johnston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Note: Article has been moved to Impregnation of Sarah Palin's daughter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) since moved back

In brief: BLP . A7. 1E.

A redirect which existed in this namespace was deleted due to Rfd. Article was created in same space, then deleted by me as a BLP violation; subsequent discussion on the drv indicates editors would prefer a full afd. From BLP not a tabloid paper from the intro should cover it, but also read Presumption in favor of privacy, and WP:1E: "Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." Given that this individual was deemed, by Rfd, to be only possibly barely notable enough for a redir if his name remained at Public image of Sarah Palin#Teen pregnancy in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 March 13, he's not notable. Johnston is not 1E, he's 1E once removed, as Bristol is the 1E (no article on her due to 1E as well.) Arbcom has instructed that "Administrators are authorized to use any and all means at their disposal to ensure that every Wikipedia article is in full compliance with the letter and spirit of the biographies of living persons policy. Administrators may use the page protection and deletion tools as they believe to be reasonably necessary to effect compliance." then clearly deletion in a BLP context is an appropriate choice. Those who read the Special enforcement on biographies of living persons linked to will note that appeals to actions taken under that provision are to go through ANI or appeal to the committee; as there is clearly disagreement whether this was a BLP violation or not (as evidenced by the Drv) I waive any such process-wonkery and strongly urge those tempted to indulge in that kind of irrelevant minutia to also ignore that proviso and approach this as a plain vanilla Afd.

Further, as the article made zero claims of notability (I consider calling Johnston a "celebrity father" intensely bad writing, not a claim of notability) it also qualifies under A7. Finally, as a side note, the article is in the space of a redir which had been deleted due to the nn of the subject, it seems unlikely the subject is actually notable enough for an entire article - which contains the date of the child's birth, which has been removed elsewhere as violating privacy of a minor; this makes the article a coatrack for trying to get that irrelevant detail in past those watching the Palin family of articles. The article also highlighted Johnston's "I don't want kids" and "I'm a f - - -in' redneck... Ya f - - - with me I'll kick [your] ass" from his MySpace, which he took down the minute the news media found it, which is precisely the kind of thing BLP protects him from having to endure - his old bs comments on MySpace should not haunt him forever, and he clearly doesn't want them public or he wouldn't have taken them down. As an OTRS volunteer, I would certainly remove should someone open a ticket requesting such youthful folly be expunged, as it is not news, not relevant, and is embarrassing. Wikipedia is not a gossip column, with nothing better to do than embarrass people over trivial details of their past. Add it all up, and there is zero reason to have this article on WP and quite a few not to.

My preferred outcome: Delete article, replace with Redirect to Public image of Sarah Palin#Teen pregnancy where Johnston's mention has remained stable. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nom Ucanlookitup (talk) 13:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Replace With Redirect. The alleged notability of Levi Johnston is based on the fact that he is the ex-fiance of Bristol Palin. Bristol Palin's alleged notability is based on being a child of Sarah Palin. There is currently no article for Bristol Palin. See WP:Tabloid. The sole, single, solitary event for which this person is allegedly notable seems to be the impregnation of the daughter of someone famous. Tabloid journalism continues to be fascinated with that event, which is fine, but does not justify a Wikipedia article.Ferrylodge (talk) 13:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "sole, single, solitary event for which" Jessica Lynch is notable is the episode in Iraq. In the unlikely event that you propose the deletion of that article (which would be consistent with your stated view), I'll favor keeping it, because we must also consider the sequelae of the original event. JamesMLane t c 15:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh come on, James. I clicked on that Lynch link to find out who she is, and found an article about a soldier who "was injured and captured by Iraqi forces, but was recovered on 1 April by U.S. special operations forces, with the incident subsequently receiving considerable news coverage. Lynch, along with major media outlets, has since accused the U.S. government of fabricating this story as part of the Pentagon's propaganda effort." How can you even seriously begin to compare these people? There might be a comparison if instead the Lynch article said that she "was found to have had sex with someone related to someone famous." Please get a grip.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd say that arguably whatever notability each of these people has ultimately derives from a single event (or non-event) -- via its treatment (decent, feeble, absurd) by the media, and the media treatment (ditto) of this treatment, etc etc. For Lynch, the media brouhaha and repercussions all added up to quite a lot, and from my POV I'd say that it discussed issues that merit discussion. From my POV I'd say that nothing about Johnston (or nothing that I've heard of) merits discussion -- but that's merely my POV. Also, Johnston has undoubtedly been discussed less than Lynch. But their differences (whether factual or merely in my PoV) aside, neither would (yet) be of note anywhere without the sole, single, solitary event -- and there's the link for a comparison between the two; and also, I think, good reason to read and interpret BLP1E with care. (Not that I'm purporting to speak for JML here.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you, Hoary. I'm glad that someone paid attention to the argument I was actually making. Obviously Lynch is more notable than Johnston. My point, however, was that the way "one event" is being used by KC and Ferrylodge, the Lynch article would also have to be deleted, because her notability results entirely from one event plus the things that followed from it. If she had never been captured, we would never have heard of her. For those wishing to improve their understanding of logic, the argument form is called modus tollens: (1) If the KC/Ferrylodge view were correct, then an article about Jessica Lynch would be improper. (2) The article about Jessica Lynch is not improper. (This is not a case of "other crap exists", but rather a clear community judgment that the Lynch article is not crap.) (3) Therefore, the KC/Ferrylodge view is not correct. JamesMLane t c 09:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  You could hardly insult me further than referring to me grouped with FerryLodge, as in "KC/Ferrylodge", although your stubborn obtuseness as regards my view leads me to believe you are intentionally misunderstanding and making such comments as a sort of "back door" personal attack. I would appreciate you addressing the issue of the article without further flights of fancy about what I might think about the Lynch article, about which you cannot possibly know my views, or any other random comparison which you wish to make for me - in short, don't speak for me. You have thus far been 100% inaccurate. I advise you not to attempt a career at mindreading. Yours, KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I take offense at that "KC/Ferrylodge" remark too. And no way does WP:Tabloid (which I cited above) apply to Lynch.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Killer Chihuahua wrote, "Multiple articles about one event is still one event." Ferrylodge referred to "[t]he sole, single, solitary event for which this person is allegedly notable". I interpreted these comments (by both editors) as referring to the same argument -- that there was only one event for which Johnston was notable. In the view of both editors, Johnston's appearance at the Republican National Convention, the publicity accorded to the end of his engagement with Bristol Palin, and his interviews on nationwide television must be discounted as separate events because they all flowed in some way from the initial "one event"/"solitary event", and therefore did not constitute additional events. My phrase "the KC/Ferrylodge view" was intended as a shorthand reference to this thesis. To the extent that anyone misinterpreted my statement as asserting that KC and Ferrylodge agreed on anything else, I apologize and disclaim that meaning. To the extent that my statement identifies an actual point of similarity in the two editors' views, however, I stand by it.

To KillerChihuahua: My reference to what you might thing about the Lynch article isn't a flight of fancy. It's an argument against the stated basis of your position concerning Johnston, by showing that your thesis, applied consistently, would call for deletion of the Lynch article as well. I can understand why you would prefer not to have to face that argument. If you choose to drop the invective and address the substance, you can explain why the Lynch article somehow survives your "one event" standard, or you can bite the bullet and say that it, too, should be deleted, thus acknowledging that your position would represent a substantial change in Wikipedia policy.

To Ferrylodge: I recognize that you made more than one argument -- you raised the one-event issue and you further characterized that "solitary event" as one fit only for the tabloids. You could instead drop the "solitary event" point and say that Johnston is notable for several things, all of which are tabloidish rather than encyclopedic. I would still disagree. For example, when we have a national politician (Sarah Palin) whose prominence is based partly on her strong following among social conservatives, and when someone with first-hand knowledge states that the politician knew of nonmarital teen sex going on under her roof, that gets beyond the tabloids and becomes a substantive political matter. JamesMLane t c 19:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Levi Mr. Johnston has been the subject of many stories and interviews about him and his life. Privacy issues certainly are not a concern as he has appeared in several national media interviews. In September there was not much information or independent notability for Levi Mr. Johnston, but there is now. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 14:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Again I quote WP:1E: "Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry" Your keep argument has been refuted in the nomination. Further, you are not addressing the primary concern: this article is being used to circumvent protection of minors and BLP policy. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Who is a minor here? Levi Mr. Johnston is 19, Bristol Ms. Palin is 18. If the article is not up to standards then work to bring it up to such standards, or protect the article. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Also your 1 event argument does not hold, as he has surpassed the 1 event. The 1 event was getting Bristol Ms. Palin pregnant. That first brought him into the news, but his actions since, and the coverage of those actions since has expanded his notability beyond 1 event to such events as the Tyra interview, and the future tell-all book. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 14:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  The infant. As I said in the nomination, the article contains the date of the child's birth, which has been removed elsewhere as violating privacy of a minor; this makes the article a coatrack for trying to get that irrelevant detail in past those watching the Palin family of articles KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Or that's what it might make it for some editors; I'm puzzled by the way in which both you and Collect are so certain that the article is, or would be, a coatrack for this or that. Johnston might not be at all "notable" in WP terms (I haven't yet decided) but if he's 19 he's no longer a minor. I'm also a little puzzled by the repeated use of "Levi" in the nomination. Of course, there's no rule against your calling him this, but I can't help wondering whether it's an attempt to make him seem younger than he is and more helpless than his apparent eagerness for TV exposure would suggest. -- Hoary (talk) 15:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Johnston is an adult, however immature an example. The minor in question is the infant (Johnston and Palin's child). My use of "Levi" cascaded from using "Bristol" to differentiate her readily from Sarah Palin; however, you are correct that MoS and common practice is to use last names. I have edited the nom accordingly. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Remember Mr. Johnston is a living person, and as such we should try to avoid derogatory snide labeling such as "immature". Thanks. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 16:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Implying that Johnston might be immature in an Afd discussion neither attacks him unduly, nor is this articlespace. IMO, anyone who appears on Tyra Banks and Larry King to discuss his sex life with his teenage girlfriend stands an excellent chance of being damn immature, but that's just my opinion. Yours may vary. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  IMO, just about the whole of the US infotainment industry is damn immature; but that little (underinformed) observation aside, the impression I got from the Guardian pieces I cited below was that Johnston likes to talk about parenthood, shooting animals, etc, but is far less enthusiastic than Larry King is to talk about sex. In another of my opinions, great swathes of WP readers are damn immature, what with their apparently unslakable thirst for details of, uh, well, I'd better not supply flamebait here; but anyway a de facto principle of WP seems to be that it should allow interested writers to serve up suitably sourced, earnest articles about utter trivia because to deny this expository urge would be [please put down your beer glass before you drop it in horror] elitist. -- Hoary (talk) 16:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A clear BLP1E case if ever there was one. And the material about the child violates WP policy about non-noptable minor cildren. Being a hunter and hockey player is definitely not close to any assertion of real notability. The entire topic is a coatrack to connect sexual abstinence as an issue with the out-of-wedlock birth of a child and Sarah Palin. Since the only real assertion of notability is the Palin connection, this does not warrant a BLP ab initio. WP does not in general carry biographies of teenage parents and include full name and birthdate of a minor child who has zero notability asserted by anyone. In addition the use of a "colorful" quote which is no longer available is a clear violation of BLP where the aim is to get a biography right, not to insert irrelevant defamatory material. The interviews, as they are connected to that child, do not convey any additional notability past the child -- which means that BLP1E is still an issue. Interviews directly connected with the "single event" do not constitute a "second event." Collect (talk) 14:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Please clarify: delete outright, or replace with the suggested Redir, or have you an alternate Redir suggestion? Thanks - KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Glad to. If his name is mentioned in another article or articles, a redirect to any such articles is valid, even if it requires a disambiguation page to allow the seeker to determine which article is most likely to contain what he or she is looking for (I am presuming that none of the pages contains a lot of biographical information). By the way, I think this is likely a good idea for articles which appear as redlinks in multiple articles - a number of people are redlinked in many articles even though they do not have an article of their own. Collect (talk) 14:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep A celebrity with extensive continuing coverage 8 months past 15 minutes - per references in article. Though the article, as is, needs to be expanded to reflect this time period. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Multiple articles about one event is still one event. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep' While he used to be a prime candidate for BLP1E, that is simply no longer the case. His latest media blitz has received significant coverage in reliable sources times 100. He was initially famous for the pregnancy, but has now become one of those annoying people who is famous for being famous, as he seeks out all the media coverage he can get. The sources have been piling up for 8 months, and we now need to cover such a notable situation. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 14:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Multiple articles about one event is still one event. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment seems quite unnotable to me. But not only is he a minor obsession of the tabloids and of tabloid TV, this very obsession on their part seems to be making him into a minor star in, say, the Guardian: "the Good Morning America interview provides more evidence of Johnston's admirable levelheadedness in the midst of national media hyperventilation" (this article); "During a bizarre exchange, [Larry] King asked to see the 'Bristol' tattoo on Johnston's finger. King asked Johnston why he got the tattoo" etc etc ad nauseam (here). Collect writes: Being a hunter and hockey player is definitely not close to any assertion of real notability. I strongly agree, but I must always concede that real notability and WP-determined "notability" are two very different things. Collect continues: The entire topic is a coatrack to connect sexual abstinence as an issue with the out-of-wedlock birth of a child and Sarah Palin. Yeah, possibly. I don't know. I'm puzzled by Collect's certainty. It's not at all obvious that this is the interest of the Guardian, in which (I think) Johnston is shown as a stolid sort around whom Larry King and the like make asses of themselves (and a decent contrast to Steve Schmidt). Of course this too would hardly be a reason for an article on Johnston, but to me it suggests that an interest in him can be independent of an interest in his kid's granny. ¶ [After various edit clashes:] A "celebrity"? Well, yes, as I understand the term to mean somebody who's famous for being famous. A "media blitz"? What does this mean in plain English? -- Hoary (talk) 14:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  When I say media blitz, I mean his latest round of interviews. He's basically been going on any talk shows that will have him, and for whatever reason, some shows with huge audiences are allowing him on. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- he's a putz, but he's become a notable putz, and for more than 1 event. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Multiple articles about one event is still one event. Do you know of even one other event? At all? KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah, this recent round of publicity seeking that is abetted by people like Larry King. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Was that to me? In which case, I repeat: multiple articles (or appearances) about one event is still only one event. Is he on Larry King because he found the cure for cancer or some other new thing, or because he impregnated Bristol Palin, which is the one thing? KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, BLP1E. Wikipedia is not a tabloid newspaper. Let him be. Stifle (talk) 15:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - BLP1E explicitly states it is for a person "who essentially remains a low-profile individual." It was created for the protection of private individuals who have no interest in being public figures but find themselves in the news; i.e. "Peoria Man Accidently Mows Off Own Foot." This isn't August 2008 anymore. Someone who has been covered extensively by reliable sources all over the world consistantly for over eight months (it would be willful ignorance to assume coverage will suddenly stop), willingly appear on Larry King Live, the Tyra Banks Show, the Early Show, etc. is not by any definition "low profile." Some people might not like the reasons this person became famous, but that doesn't change the fact this person is now very high profile.--Oakshade (talk) 16:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - BLP issues should be dealt with by removing specifically libelous content, not deleting entire articles. Wikipedia is not a tabloid, but tabloid figures often still meet the threshold of notability. This is a silly situation, which smart people recognize shouldn't be covered by the mainstream media, but it unfortunately is, which makes it notable. If it's on CNN -- and it's not just a brief story, but an ongoing story that's repeatedly covered (which isn't covered under WP:Tabloid), it seems to be notable. There's plenty of sources that could be used. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 16:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, actually, it is. "Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic.". Johnston got Palin pregnant; that's the event. There's no "ongoing" development, and if you're arguing that there is, the "ongoing" event is either Johnston still talking about impregnating his girlfriend, and/or an infant who is not only not notable, the child is covered by our protection of minors policy. Presumption of privacy applies heavily with an infant, and there is no other thing Johnston has done. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Four events: 1) Bristol gets pregnant during the election 2) Levi breaks off the engagement and claims Sarah Palin knew they were having pre-marital sex 3) Sarah Palin calls Levi a liar. 4) Levi does a long list of interviews, which people speculate are for self-promotion, which the media helps him with because it's a slow news-week... A possible fifth event is their recent remarks about abstinence. The story has been going on for a few months now. Coverage doesn't continue without new ongoing developments. We might personally consider those ongoing developments to be stupid or trite, but that is a subjective, personal opinion which has no impact on Wikipedia policy. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 19:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You clearly don't understand WP:BIO, which will tell you what is notable and what is not. That's not four events: that's gossip about the guy who got Bristol Palin pregnant, and is a clear violation of BLP. Breaking an engagement is not noteworthy. Calling someone a liar is not noteworthy. Getting someone pregnant isn't either, and we never would have even heard of him except that he happened to get the daughter of a notable person pregnant. Notable is wrote a best selling book; decorated by three governments; won the Nobel prize; award winning architect. None of what you've listed is even on the scale of "notable". KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In a nutshell, Zenwhat, notability is not measurable by any objective criteria, nor is it possible to be judged using the standards at WP:BIO. Rather, notability is gauged by the extent to which KC wants an article to exist or not. It is not relevant that the basic criteria for notability is that the person "has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject," as is the case here. Because Levi Johnston has not written a best-selling book, been decorated by three governments, won the Nobel prize or designed a better building than Frank Lloyd Wright, he obviously cannot be notable.

Now, I know what you're thinking, "Sarah Palin didn't do any of those things either... How come she gets an article?" Because KC said so. Again, if all you want to do is endorse articles about non-Nobel-prize-winning, non-best-selling-book-writing non-architects, take it to Loserpedia. This is Wikipedia, and we don't recognize the notability of high school dropouts, even if they are the subject of secondary source material that's reliable, intellectually independent and independent of the subject. — Bdb484 (talk) 20:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In respone to KillerChihuahua: We never would have even heard of Monica Lewinsky except that she happened to have an affair with a notable person. We never would have even heard of Jessica Lynch except for her involvement in one event. It's just not enough to keep intoning "one event" while completely ignoring all the subsequent events, just because the subsequent events would not have occurred if not for the initial event. JamesMLane t c 21:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll disregard your personal attacks, Bdb484. Johnston didn't get the president pregnant, and there was no discussion of impeachment. You're comparing apples and oranges - there is no second event. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"we don't recognize the notability of high school dropouts, even if they are the subject of secondary source material that's reliable..." John Frusciante is a featured article and was just on the main page a few days ago. There are plenty of high school dropouts with articles here, i.e. we recognize their notability. Tparameter (talk) 10:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:BIO1E and WP:Tabloid. One notable thing in his life, at most. Hekerui (talk) 16:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per Oakshade and Zenwhat. While I don't personally find either him or Bristol Palin particularly interesting, they've both apparently become pseudo-pundits in the abstinence/sex-ed debates (first I've heard of it, but the sources I clicked speak for themselves on that). Not really sure BLP1E applies, since they're obviously not interested in preserving their own privacy, and this isn't a situation where someone is writing an article about themselves or a close friend. They do seem notable enough that someone might want to look them up on Wikipedia to see what the hubbub is about. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 16:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BLP1E. Not a public figure outside of this one incident. Somewhat bizarrely, Bristol Palin, who I would argue now is, has her article redirect to Sarah Palin. If she's not considered notable enough for an article, there's no way that he should be. Rebecca (talk) 16:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bristol should have her own page, in my opinion. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This may have been a borderline one had he not started doing interviews himself. There is an abundance of sourcing and even he seems to think he's notable enough for mainstream media interviews so all that remians here is regular editing which is not a reason to delete. With Palin a likely 2012 presidential forerunner - or possibly VP candidiate again it's hard to see this guy fading into obscurity. -- Banjeboi 16:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A few counters. There reason there is no Bristol Palin article is because the article space has been protected using admin tools to prevent an article from being created. If it wasn't there would be an article, so that doesn't provide a counter argument. The one incident is ridiculous. There were multiple instances involving pregnancies, campaign appearances, a public breakup (essentially divorce), and public debates over US educational birth control policies. Further even if one incident is the problem, Lee Harvey Oswald is a good counter to 1 incident can be enough. He is a person with much much higher name recognition than most people covered on wikipedia and tons of RSes. Finally, articles shouldn't be nominated for AFD after 2 weeks of existence. There is no reason not to wait and see how this article develops. The article shows strong signs of rapid improvement. I would endorse a policy on the talk page of the article banning the myspace content from being mentioned. jbolden1517^Talk 17:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Massive notability and still making news. The subject is not low profile and, if it matters, the topic is covered in broadsheets too. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He's seeking publicity, and getting it, and I see no "event" here; rather he's notable because of his tangled relationship with a family that is going to remain in the public eye for a long time, generating ongoing nonesense -- but the kind of nonesense that this encyclopedia is filled with.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Advocates for deletion keep saying "one event, one event, one event" -- a clear misreading of the record. He impregnated Bristol Palin. Was that the end of it? Absolutely not. The Palin campaign sought to spin the unwed pregnancy into a positive, by emphasizing that the couple would get married. For that reason he was displayed prominently during the campaign. Furthermore, after the election, there was a highly publicized breakup. The couple ended their engagement, which was seen as undermining Palin's "family values" cred. Even more important, Johnston went on national TV and gave an interview stating, among other things, that Governor Palin -- the de facto leader of the Republican Party's powerful social-conservative wing -- had known that he and Bristol were having sex. Palin considered that interview important enough to get out a prompt statement denouncing Johnston as a liar. By virtue of all these events, he's become a notable figure. JamesMLane t c 17:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of that is about Palin not Johnston, and could be documented in one of the 1000 or so articles about her. Bonewah (talk) 16:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Johnston says Palin knew that he and Bristol were having sex. Palin says Johnston is lying. Is that exchange about Palin or Johnston? Well, I'd say it's about both. Trying to say it's about one but not the other is really splitting hairs. Was the Clinton-Lewinsky affair about Clinton, not Lewinsky? Not surprisingly, I don't see a raft of conservative editors saying that the Monica Lewinsky article should be deleted. In both instances, the bio subject had a "one event" type incident that affected a prominent politician, and there were consequences of the one event, and the bio subject received extensive coverage that wouldn't have happened but for the one event and its impact on the politician. JamesMLane t c 18:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The basic criteria for notability are more than met:

A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.

• If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.[6]
• Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject.

Also in case no one noticed it's NOT WP:ONEEVENT, he's becoming increasing notable, not less, with deeper coverage including full-length interviews. Drawn Some (talk) 17:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Preferably Merge somewhere - while I accept Johnston has now become notable, I still don't think there's much to say about him, and the idea of keeping this article while not having one on Bristol Palin would seem a bit odd. Personally, I'd like to see them both covered in an article called something like Family of Sarah Palin (by analogy with Family of Barack Obama, which also contains subsections on people not fully notable enough for their own articles). However, assuming that isn't possible here, my second choice would be Keep. Things have changed from when this article was last considered back in 2008 (and I argued to delete it); he was a BLP1E then, but he's not now. That doesn't mean this information wouldn't be better presented as part of a longer, more general article, though. Robofish (talk) 17:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the reluctance to give him an article when you say he's notable. (Sorry to pick on you, you're not the only one thinking like this.) It is very conceivable to me that one day Bristol Palin will be known only as the daughter of a failed VP candidate and the mother of the very notable Levi Johnston's love-child. I don't particularly care for this kind of celebrity but let's decide whether or not he should have an article based on facts and guidelines and policy and consider him as an individual and not on the basis of his relationship to other people. Drawn Some (talk) 18:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm basically a Mergist. I believe that the fact that some topic meets notability requirements doesn't necessarily justify it having its own article - many less-important topics are better covered in combined articles than separately. I think that's the case here. (By the way, as for the 'It is very conceivable to me that one day...' bit: that may be the case someday, but it's not the case yet. Let's not make judgements based on how things could happen in the future.) Robofish (talk) 02:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The main Palin bio was edited by the removal of Johnston's name. In Talk:Sarah Palin there was fierce opposition to restoring the information. (See, e.g., this archived thread.) His notability has increased since then, but I'll go out on a limb and guess that many of the editors who resisted it then would still resist any merge like the one you suggest. Furthermore, while I personally think that a brief mention there would be appropriate, a merge would either port over way too much detail or would lose a lot of valid, encyclopedic, properly sourced information. JamesMLane t c 06:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Johnston has become significant both for knocking up Sarah Palin's daughter and for his advocacy for safe-sex practices. I don't think this is really a WP:BLP1E, situation, but even if it were, the guideline does not say to delete the article, but rather to do a merge and redirect of the information with the article about the event for which he is notable. If that's the case, then someone needs to get to work on Impregnation of Bristol Palin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdb484 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 9 May 2009
• Reluctant Keep, as it meets requirements for notability, RS, ongoing coverage etc. The reason I say reluctant, is that I think these sorts of article can actually act to take away information from where it would be primarily useful, which in this case is the Sarah Palin article (under something like the 'personal life' section), with a redirect from 'Levi Johnston'. If there is too much information then it can be split off from the main article in the same way that many of the headings have expanded sub-articles. Doing this would prevent the information from being hidden away in a more obscure article, and place it where it is more relevent. I realise that there is nothing to prevent the Sarah Palin article also talking about the same things, but in my experience it is less likely to happen. Quantpole (talk) 21:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep as stand-alone, or Keep or Merge with redirect, or Merge? Or any of the above? Thanks! KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • According to policy, I don't think there is any reason why it shouldn't be its own article. However, my personal opinion is that it would better serve the purposes of the encyclopedia to merge it with an apprpriate Sarah Palin related article, and redirect. Quantpole (talk) 21:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: We're talking about a young man who practiced safe sex with his high school girlfriend (except once, at least). Take away the dubious notability of the girlfriend and there is no notability at all. No one would be interviewing him today if he had a different girlfriend, or if her mother hadn't been a candidate for vice president. It doesn't matter how many times he is trotted out for an interview, it's still just about the one event. He also doesn't make a very good poster child for either safe sex or abstinence, since he didn't practice either consistently. Other than the value in bashing his girlfriend's mother's position on sex education, he has little news or entertainment value. Let's do him a favor and let him get on with his life. Celestra (talk) 00:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with Wikipdeia's notability guidelines. While I do find value in doing favors and not giving private individuals attention that they didn't ask for, this is in no manner a private individual and it was Levi Johnston who put himself on several national (and international) television talk shows, not Wikipedia.--Oakshade (talk) 01:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and replace with redirect. This unremarkable individual has received a certain amount of attention from the more immature and gossipy rags as a result of his tenuous connection with Sarah Palin, and thus his existence and status are verifiable from reliable sources. Therefore his name is a plausible search term, and should not be a redlink. However, he is not notable enough for his own article because notability is not inherited. Thus, a redirect is the only option consistent with policy and guidelines.

  The reason I think the article's previous content and history should be deleted is because it is not encyclopaedic in nature and is in conflict with the guidelines and policies I cited a moment ago.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • He's received a certain amount of attention from The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Chicago Tribune, The Sunday Times, and The Times of India, none of which are generally considered to be among "the more immature and gossipy rags". JamesMLane t c 04:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The relationship's over, the election's over, and he's still giving interviews. No intent to remain a low profile person per WP:BLP1E is evident, and the sourcing is just fine. Jclemens (talk) 00:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I came into this discussion tentatively planning to vote for delete, if at all, but y'all have convinced me. He has an ongoing high profile, and we're getting to the point where his name is invoked in the media without parenthetical explanation, i.e., assuming that the audience knows who he is. Kestenbaum (talk) 02:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete in the spirit of WP:BLP1E (thus bypassing the argument about the letter of the policy). I have little knowledge, and no opinion, of the degree of coverage of his relationship with the governor's daughter in our articles on the 2008 campaign, but firmly believe that information about him should stay there -- and personal details not relevant to his notability should not be in the encyclopedia. Having a biography in his name would be bait for precisely that. Ray^Talk 03:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The spirit of WP:BLP1E is the protection of private individuals who find themselves in the news with no desire to be (it's all in the WP:BLP talk page history). Of course, someone who willingly goes on several national and international television talk shows and seeks a book deal and modeling career does not fall into that description. --Oakshade (talk) 03:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E is to avoid providing a platform for extensive revelations regarding people of limited public scope, which is only partially based on a concern for the subject's privacy; here I was also referencing a desire to respect the privacy of other private figures involved in the situation, whose lives would necessarily be examined in an extensive examination of Johnston's (consider, for example, Governor Palin's daughter). It is also tied in with WP:BIO1E, which is about limiting coverage of people who are relatively unimportant aside from one event. Goodness knows, it's a royal pain patrolling biographies of genuine public figures to prevent irrelevant remarks of low English quality, to say nothing of poor moral taste, from appearing. We don't need to extend our troubles further. Ray^Talk 03:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Bristol Palin, where there should be an article already. --Evb-wiki (talk) 04:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh? Neither seems to have any genuine notability whatever; but as for WP-style "notability", I get the impression that he's more of a sleb than she is. Whose "media blitz" is bigger/glitzier? -- Hoary (talk) 04:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete If Notability is not inherited, then this is an interesting case--the media created this notability. We have the ex-boyfriend of a daughter of a losing vice presidential candidate. How many degrees of removal from actual notability do we have here? In short, WP:BLP1E, and a creation of the media for that 1E. Eauhomme (talk) 04:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:BLP1E should not be taken literally and should include those notable for two events, especially if the second event originated from the first event. This will probably not get deleted through this afd because, as is always the case with an afd whose subject is in the midst of running the Larry King circuit, the WP:ILIKEIT's outvote those arguing for deletion based on actual WP guidelines. I would hope the nom, or someone else, renominate the article for afd a few months after the talk shows get sick of him. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Ferrylodge puts it better than I ever could. Sceptre ^(talk) 11:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:BLP1E definitely applies here. Further, the argument that he is famous for being in the news has the effect of reading BPL1E out of existence. If someone is famous for 1 event, then that person is obviously famous. To claim that fame itself is a separate event means that no one would ever be covered by BLP1E. Bonewah (talk) 15:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:BLP1E states very clearly "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." (underline added where italics are at source) There is absolutely nothing "low profile" about this person any more. After August, 2008, this person did not remain "low profile" and after over eight months, has emerged much higher profile. --Oakshade (talk) 16:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Although BLP1E does say: Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them (my emphasis). Johnston's "profile" seems moderately high (however improbably so), and there's no sign that he's unhappy about this. Indeed, he seems to want to raise his "profile", or at least to keep it high. As I understand it, smarmy talk show hosts aren't ambushing him in the street; instead, he's volunteering to appear in their studios. -- Hoary (talk) 16:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares what he wants? Why should his desire to be famous effect our thinking in this regard? Bonewah (talk) 16:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's relevant to the policy being used to justify deletion, i.e. "Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual..." Bali ultimate (talk) 16:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of the policies, yes - the primary argument. The "deletes" position is that stretching your 15 minutes of twice-removed fame for a completely non-notable act (having sex with your girlfriend) into a somewhat lengthy media tour is still One Event. The "keeps" argue that yeah, its one event, but he is not keeping a "low profile". Some are also arguing that the multiple appearances/interviews are more than one event, but they are mistaken. The "deletes" counter with - it was not a notable event at all, so its not even really one event, its no events, which the media is covering anyway! - that's the (heavily simplified) nutshell version. there are other arguments as well, of course, but that's how his desire plays into this discussion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that 'low profile' in this context is synonymous with low importance, low notability, not ones desire to be famous, but I expect im going to be in the minority here. Still, I dont think it matters either way, we all agree he is famous, whether he wanted to be or not, and if we take that fame to be another 'event' then BLP1E has no meaning. We should also make note of WP:BIO1E, which is slightly different from WP:BLP1E. Bonewah (talk) 17:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No indication of notability beyond an ancillary role in an event briefly in the media trough before most of them moved on. The remaining references are covered either by slow news day or perpetual slow news day type sources, except the occasional passing mention. I would prefer a redirect, but have no problem deferring to the RfD discussion. - 2/0 (formerly Eldereft) (cont.) 19:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep For better or worse, Mr. Johnston is still a notable and high-profile personality, and the article more than meets WP:RS standards. Whether this is the case in six months is another story, and I suspect this discussion will have a sequel later in the year should the AfD close as Keep or No Consensus. Pastor Theo (talk) 21:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 00:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Mr. Johnston recieved international mainstream media attention due to his 2009 interview with Larry King Live per the Chicago Tribune's Levi Johnston takes his case to Larry King, The Politico's Levi: The Palins 'blew us off', The Guardian's Hunting and tattoos: Bizarre moments from Levi Johnston's interview, Los Angeles Times Levi Johnston's shockingly candid answers to CNN's Larry King, etc... for some examples. This widespread coverage for this event makes Johnston more than notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Unenthusiastic keep. Seems to have no genuine notability whatever, but he's neither a minor nor merely a helpless pawn in the continuing Palin soap opera, and he's got an adequate amount of "media attention" to merit an article according to my considered interpretation of those policy paragraphs that have been obligingly pointed out by those who favor deletion. Perhaps in an ideal world Wikipedia wouldn't hinder his return to oblivion, but then ditto for these and many other slebs; in this world, many people avidly consume junk and want to pursue it here: who's to stop them? -- Hoary (talk) 01:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A clear case where BLP1E does not apply. that he is the father of the candidates grandchild does not necessarily make him notable. If that were all, and he had never been interviewed on national media, BLP would possibly apply--conceivably it might apply even if though media made a issue out of it. Once he took part in the convention, it no longer applied. His subsequent activities have only added to it. Applying "do no harm" is ridiculous under the circumstances. DGG (talk) 02:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Clearly meets WP:N and 1 event doesn't apply. To quote:

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them.

I just don't see how we can claim he's a low-profile individual. Hobit (talk) 13:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. He's been written about over a span of months by numerous major news sources from multiple countries, not just in passing, but as a focus of stories, so he's notable. He gives interviews and is actively trying to publish a memoir, so he's not trying to be low profile. --GRuban (talk) 13:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Might anyone at all show me some cites where the word "Palin" is not prominently mentioned? Elsewise, I would suggest that the BLP1E is clearly evident. Collect (talk) 17:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The standard isn't that cites don't mention Palin at all, the standard is that the cites aren't primarily about Palin while only mentioning Johnston in passing. Would we demand that cites about Laura Bush not prominently mention George? --GRuban (talk) 17:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any cites which are about Levi which do not specifically state "father of Bristol's baby" or the like at all? Where a single fact is mentioned in all the articles, I submit that it is implicit that the article exists substantially because of the iterated fact. Note that I said "prominently mentioned" which is what I was talking about. Absent any such cites, I submit that the BLP1E us proven. Collect (talk) 17:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat, that's like demanding cites about Laura Bush that don't prominently mention "wife of President George W. Bush" or the like at all. It's an unreasonable demand, and not among the BLP1E requirements. Notability is not inherited automatically, but you certainly can become notable through your relationship with a notable person, if that relationship itself is worthy of note, as this one is. "Unmarried teen father of the grandchild of a highly conservative vice presidential candidate" is pretty notable, and does not come along every day. --GRuban (talk) 18:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what WP:BLP1E does say. "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." Since the guy has appeared, alone, without any Palins, on multiple national television interview programs, he is not low profile, and of his own free will. The "presumption in favor of privacy" means that we assume he's attempting to be private unless we have evidence to the contrary, not despite any evidence to the contrary! --GRuban (talk) 18:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which would make sense except that all the interviews focus on the Palin connection. "Appearing without the Palins" does not make him separately notable if the focus of the interviews is on -- the Palins. Collect (talk) 18:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fawn Hall always "secretary of ollie north." Laura Bush all cites, "wife of president." Donna Rice "girlfriend of gary hart." Chesley Sullenberger "heroic pilot of US Air flight 1549." Sirhan Sirhan "murdered RFK." Jack Ruby "murdered Lee Harvey Oswald." Michael Carroll "won UK national lottery." "Lottery winners" cat[1] has about 10 of these. Jessica Lynch "captured by iraqi forces." Elizabeth Smart "kidnapping victim." "Kidnapped american children" cat[2] has about 30 of these. Etc... It's not my intention to make an otherstuff argument; but to point out that time and again, people who become known for one event or one key relationship frequently are deemed to pass our notability requirements.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really dont see how that isnt an otherstuff argument. And I want to reiterate, low profile is not relevant to notability, People notable only for one event provides guidance here and doesnt make any mention of low profile at all. Bonewah (talk) 18:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In a nutshell my argument is: There are many, many people who are notable as a consquence of one event and its aftermath. I've provided some examples of this phenomenon. Notability stemming from one event is not, on its face, disqualifying. Did the event itself, the circumstances surrounding it, the people involved, and the implications (social, political, whatever) of the event achieve a wide degree of public interest and coverage extending beyond the brief temporal window of the "event?" If so, then in my opinion notablity is satisfied, as i believe in this instance.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are two different deletion arguments here, which is why Bonewah is confused due to not being able to find "low profile" in one of them. WP:BIO1E is a notability argument - that Johnston is only notable for one event. Well, he's notable for a relationship, which, if you read the examples, isn't the sort of thing WP:BIO1E considers a single event. The ongoing coverage of his actions in unrelated nation-wide and international sources goes to show that he is quite notable. WP:BLP1E is a privacy argument - it specifically mentions low profile, which he isn't. --GRuban (talk) 20:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not at all confused, please reread my post. And by what reading of WP:BIO1E did you determine that a relationship is not a single event? What examples listed there do you think support that view? Bonewah (talk) 20:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand i probably won't convince you. But not only am i convinced he's established as notable even if we assume this was one event i don't see it as one event, but rather events. 1. Romeo and Juliet phase. 2. Announcement of pregnancy in the middle of a heated campaign in which the mother of the girl was a noted cultural conservative strongly opposed to pre-marital sex. 3. Embracing of Johnston at the GOP convention, signals that all was good, boy was going to do the right thing by girl, marriage in the works. 4. Various speculation (much of it of a mean and opportunistic variety, but some reasonable as part of the Culture Wars context of the campaign, perhaps reaching its sordid/politically relevant height with Tina Fey saying as Palin on saturday night live in response to a gay-marriage "question" that: "I believe marriage is meant to be a sacred institution between two unwilling teenagers." 5. Break-up, semi-public feuding between the Palin and Johnston camps. 6. Johnston going on the talk show circuit, shopping memoir, calling abstinence only sex education "unreasonable, Bristol Palin taking a job as a public advocate for pre-marital sexual abstinence. These things are all connected, of course. But i don't see them as one thing, but many things.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to Bonewah's contention that opponents of deletion are making an "otherstuff" argument: I take that essay (it's not a policy or guideline) to reject an argument that says "I found one article somewhere that's similar and that, for whatever reason, has escaped deletion, so this one must be kept, also." By contrast, if there's a significant number of reasonably high-profile articles that share a common characteristic, the existence of those articles may be taken as showing the community's judgment that the characteristic, whatever it is, doesn't support deletion.

Here the common characteristic is: The article is the bio of a living person, who doesn't have major career achievements (no Nobel Prize yet), and whose frequent appearances in the mass media would not have occurred except for a single initial event. Bali ultimate and I have each noted several articles that meet that description and yet survive, either having survived AfD or having never been nominated despite extensive editing. JamesMLane t c 04:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is, how notable was the one event? Having sex with a teenager isn't very important. The teenager is someone notable's daughter, or we would never have heard of LJ. Also, see Arguments to avoid: Just because OtherStuffExists doesn't mean a thing. KillerChihuahua^?!? 09:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, having sex with a teenager isn't very important. Right, if the teen hadn't been the daughter of SP, we would never have heard of it. I agree: whether the daughter of a candidate for Veep is pregnant is an entirely trivial matter. I agree, anything calling itself an encyclopedia shouldn't bother with "in-universe" accounts of trivia. However, there's no mere epidemic of articles on trivia; they are instead endemic or indeed pandemic. And no wonder, given that WP:NOTE has nothing to do with notability as the term is understood by you (I infer), me, and most of those who are in blissful ignorance of Wikipedia. Instead, it's little more than an alternative guideline about verifiability. This is repeated in the "basic criteria" of WP:BIO, which say nothing whatever about the intrinsic notability of the person, or the need for any achievement (intellectual, creative, destructive, etc). These "basic criteria" are followed by "additional criteria". There is a slight ambiguity here about the relationship between the basic and the additional criteria: does a biographee have to satisfy (a) the basic criteria and any relevant additional criterion or (b) the basic criteria or any relevant additional criterion? I have my own ideas on this, and given an eighth day in this week I'd lay them out for you -- however, for now all I need say is that: (i) the additional criteria are for certain kinds of people; (ii) Johnston doesn't seem covered by any of these; (iii) the kinds of people covered do not exhaust the kinds about whom biographies are written (rescuers, pranksters, freaks, criminals, and crime victims are among those who do not seem to be covered); ergo (iii) we needn't worry that there's none that covers Johnston. ¶ The fact is, US presidential politics has elements of tragicomedy, soap opera and/or circus, and thus even mere bit players -- Donna Rice, Billy Carter, Gennifer Flowers, John Hinckley, Jr. etc etc -- are avidly (and perhaps also regrettably) written up by the press. This makes them "notable" in the WP sense. Johnston has got at least a moderate amount of the same treatment; therefore he too is "WP-notable", even though you and I may happen to think that Larry King Live and the like cynically cater for a laughable booboisie. -- Hoary (talk) 12:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And yet your position is keep? You betray your own better sense, then. Policy is supposed to be descriptive, not prescriptive. If someone isn't notable, say so and why. If the policy on notability is just a rehashed version of V, then it isn't addressing this accurately. Remember that IAR, our oldest policy, trumps all other policies - if your common sense tells you something is best for the encyclopedia, do it, and ignore that the letter of the rules doesn't cover or even disagrees with it. You are aware that covering such talk-show-circuit non-entities will make Wikipedia more like a tabloid gossip column than a serious encyclopedia, yet you say "keep" anyway? This makes no sense to me. Even NOTE leaves room for interpretation. Some people are notable for one event. And some, regardless of how much they court the press, are not. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[out] Well, not quite. Rather, I recognize that a number of Wikipedia's guidelines are far divorced from my own sense, and I recognize that I can neither ignore these guidelines nor cheer on while others do so, but instead should (a) work to change the guidelines, (b) find policies that trump them, or (c) cite "IAR", which is something that people should only do after careful thought, and openly. I don't think IAR allows me to interpret WP:NOTE and the like to mean what I think they should mean; rather it allows me to openly acknowledge that they mean something else and to flout them all the same, IFF I have a very good reason. ¶ I'm not aware that covering such talk-show-circuit non-entities will make Wikipedia more like a tabloid gossip column than a serious encyclopedia. I certainly concede that it's fully compatible with making it so, but as long as the write-ups for tabloidy personalities and events are done scrupulously, as this one is, I'm untroubled. ¶ We agree that OTHERCRAPEXISTS is no defense of this article, but EXPRESSLYPERMITTEDCRAPMOUNTAINS might give pause for thought, and I therefore proffer for your consideration the WP:BIO criterion "Is a Playboy Playmate". We read that "As of April 2009, 666 women have been Playmates of the Month." (Christian conspiracy theorists take note of that number!) What this means, as I understand it, is that WP-"notability" is obtained by the mere display of your tits for the center pages of this venerable and fading publication for the male shopper. No other achievement whatever is needed. Just how obscure are these people? Consider the list "Notable Playmates": a typical entry reads briefcase model on Deal or No Deal; contestant on VH1's Rock of Love with Bret Michaels. The "Playmate" article tacitly admits that the great majority don't even reach this level of "notability"; ergo, well over five hundred of these people are complete nobodies. Now, does their inclusion harm WP? I don't suppose it does. The typical person arriving to read up on, say, Fibonacci number is I think unlikely to be troubled to learn that the same work of reference/trivia would tell them of Janet Lupo that Family reactions to her appearance in the November 1975 issue were mixed. Her father was very upset about it, but her mother liked it. Eventually, her father did come around, and he became very supportive of her decision. After touring the United States, Canada, and Japan to promote Playboy, Lupo started working as a bartender at a restaurant owned by a friend's husband. (All of which we can anyway flag with "{{fact}}" if we wish.) ¶ Back to Johnston. If, or so far as, you are interested in my own intuitions or beliefs (which I don't think should be a factor), my hunch is that he is actually important to Gov Palin, as Palin repeatedly (endearingly or tiresomely) packaged herself as a "mom" rather than as a stateswoman, driving her brood to hockey matches and otherwise concerning herself about their welfare. She, McCain, her own or McCain's handlers, or the Party, also chose to display the brood, together with Johnston. This may for all I know have been a reluctant concession to a sexist infotainment industry that has little interest in the offspring of male contenders; but whatever the reason, that's the way it was. And however improbable or depressing or silly it may seem, Johnston now has a "media presence". -- Hoary (talk) 14:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC) tweaked 15:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, KC, the question isn't how notable is the one event. The question is whether the one-event policy applies here at all -- does it require us to lump multiple events together just because, if it weren't for the first, none of the later ones would have occurred? Many of us believe that such a reading of the policy is totally unjustified and is countered by numerous bios of people who would be unknown except for one initial event. Your reference to Wikipedia:Other stuff exists is rather surprising, given that I expressly addressed that essay, in the comment to which you were nominally responding. For the reasons I stated, which you choose to ignore, I disagree with your assertion that the existence of other articles "doesn't mean a thing." JamesMLane t c 23:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: The current count on KillerChihuahua's failures to assume good faith by making accusations of personal attacks stands at 1, 2 and 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. — Bdb484 (talk) 19:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's an AfD, traditionally a place for good knockabout fun. Heat, kitchen, etc. -- Hoary (talk) 01:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • AGF is not a suicide pact. If there is a personal attack, calling it such does not violate AGF. Your harping on this is verging on harassment. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note In order to gain more input and consensus, this Afd has been listed at related deletion sorting list. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 01:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Excellent move. Those go on top of Alaska, Politics, and Living people; and who'd disagree that what we most need are tens of kilobytes more rational debate (and bitching) to wade through on the significance or insignificance of Mr Johnston. Still untapped are: sex 'n' gender, politics (incl. political football), Christianity (What would Jesus say?), business (because the business of America is business), events (what with it all stemming from one event, or one non-event), conspiracy theories (the "Illuminati" must be behind this), and my personal favorite, organisms. -- Hoary (talk) 01:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]