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 without prejudice. Bucketsofg 12:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admins comments. The 'deleters' have a good point about the lack of sourcing, but the 'keepers' are numerous and seem to have a good reason to suppose the subject is notable. I urge interested editor to redouble the search for reliable sources. Bucketsofg 12:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Sapienza[edit]

Jeremy Sapienza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Non-notable, no references. Although an interesting subject, I don't think we have enough information on him to create an encyclopedic article Todd(Talk-Contribs) 23:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Although the article is lacking hard biographical info, I do believe that Sapienza is notable - 1900+ ghits. Eddie.willers 01:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Eddie.willers Magioladitis 07:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Google hits do not establish notability. What we need, by WP:BIO, is secondary coverage in reliable sources. No secondary sources are given in the article, and within the Google hits (200 distinct, by the way) I found none either. If you know of any substantial press coverage, biographies published, or similar, please add these to the article. --B. Wolterding 09:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Cite sources Looking at the history, this has been around for a while and has serious contributors. I suggest contacting some of the contributors to see whether they can bring this up to standards. My gut feeling is that this can be saved. --Kevin Murray 13:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Eddie.willers Brimba 13:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The subject appears well-known within his political community, and runs a successful blog & forum. I'd worked on the article years ago. However when I just looked for some reliable sources I got the same result as B. Wolterding. I've asked another user who might know more, but without any sources we obviously can't have a neutral, verifiable article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Although some users are suggesting that the subject is notable, what is not up for debate is that the entire article is written by his friends, and is considered original research; there is not a shred of verifiable information either in the article, or that we can find on him. Wiki-rules indicate that we should delete this article. Furthermore, I put this article up for deletion at the request of the subject; although "No consensus" usually indicates that the article should be kept, in situations where the subject does not wish his or her article to remain, I would hope that we could either delete the article, or perhaps merge it to the anti-war.com article, which is where he is perhaps most notable. -Todd(Talk-Contribs) 01:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think it is generally understood from your nomination that you favor deletion in this case. This comment should be labeled as such, and not as a vote (yeah, I know: voting is evil), since you've already indicated your position. DickClarkMises 16:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)s[reply]

• Keep. We should ask whether he is notable, not whether the current article is a good one. I think it needs drastic revision and some sourcing. Here are a few sources for the claim that Sapienza may be notable enough for inclusion:

1. Robert P. Murphy addresses some of Sapienza's work here. This is an area where Murphy is a recognized scholar, and thus represents critical examination of the subject's work in his primary area of notability.
2. Wrote the introduction to Murphy's first book, Chaos Theory.
3. Justin Raimondo described Sapienza favorably here.
4. Linked from the Young Americans for Freedom page here.
5. Repeated contributor to LewRockwell.com.
6. LRC writer John Keller addresses Sapienza's views on intellectual property here.

To me, those sources and others are sufficient to warrant an article. The current one isn't very good. The nomination, though, is arguably incorrect in asserting "non-notable." In response to the second part of the nomination—that we don't have enough info to write an article—I think the sources I provide above, along with the hundreds available in a search for "jeremy sapienza" demonstrate that an adequate number of reliable sources exist to merit an article on Wikipedia. DickClarkMises 16:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is my understanding that we are looking for a 3rd party writing about him. Somebody writing about him on a website he owns (anti-state.com) would thus not be applicable. Neither would somebody writing about him on a site where he is the editor (anti-war.com). His introduction to a book, and his repeated submissions to LRC do not establish notability, but can be included as primary information once notability has been established. In order to be notable, somebody not related to him has to think he is interesting enough to write about, and that has not been established. -Todd(Talk-Contribs) 21:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: So you are saying that anything written by anyone who has written an article in a venue where Sapienza has also published cannot be used as a source? That is a ridiculous standard and not one that I get from reading WP:RS. LRC is a high-traffic website with a limited number of contributors. Sapienza's having been published there is a measure of his notability. The fact that Murphy and Raimondo have commented on Sapienza's work is too. Both of them are notable for work that has nothing to do with Sapienza. Keller's piece that mentions Sapienza is an independent, 3rd party source, that is published on a website that Sapienza has no creative control over. Whether Sapienza asked you to nom this article for deletion is not germane. Are there any BLP concerns here that raise the specter of a libel suit? Is Sapienza, a self-avowed anarchist, likely to file suit? I think the answer to both questions is "no." Jeremy Sapienza is a notable individual who has been discussed by other notable individuals in multiple, independent sources (sources that are independent from each other). He is notable, and there should be an article about him. DickClarkMises 16:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep IF sourced that seems obvious to me. If his theories have attracted public notice add the sources and no one could object to the article. DGG 23:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. DickClarkMises is spot-on with his argument that Mr. Sapienza is notable in the right context, and his examples are sound ones. I do, however, agree with DGG that expanded sourcing would make this an even better article. bwowen ^talk.^contribs 03:44, 20 June 2007 (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.