Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BJ Dichter

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2022 March 28.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2022 November 4.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 redirect to Canada convoy protest#Groups. Consensus is that there isn't enough substance for a standalone article. Whether to merge any content is up to editors. Sandstein 20:56, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BJ Dichter

[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)

Declined PROD, rationale was "per WP:BLP1E: only notable by Wikipedia standards for participation in the Freedom Convoy; what little relevant material there is can be included in that article. Being a podcaster, promoting cryptocurrency, just having religious views, and speaking at right-wing events are all things which do not establish notability." Adding here that there is some intermittent coverage prior to the Freedom Convoy of Dichter's Conservative Party and People's Party activities, but aspiring politicians who have never been elected rarely meet the WP:GNG and I don't see any reason to believe Dichter is an exception. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:40, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:40, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:40, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:40, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nom comment - I did look into sources written prior to the convoy protests and saw coverage of Dichter's failed run in Toronto-Danforth and speaking at a PPC convention, but the Conservatives have no chance of winning Toronto-Danforth (the closest they came was in Mulroney's 1984 largest-majority-in-history when they ran a very well known local media personality who was still second by more than 15% of the vote, and they've done no better than third place and 15% overall since 1993) and the PPC has little chance of winning anywhere, and I don't think the routine coverage of those two events is enough to demonstrate notability. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to WP:NOTROUTINE I don't agree with the characterization of him running for election (in unusual circumstances where the initial candidate dropped out) is routine. I quote "Routine coverages such as weddings, funerals, sports scores, and other "and finally..." stories can be used to add to a notable article some interesting and details about a subject." This, to me, is clearly, not routine with regards to him running for election. His words about "political Islam" at the PPC conference were anything but routine, I think quite an incredible thing to say, and attracted widespread coverage in major Canadian news. I also think the (unquestionably accurate) analysis of his chances of winning a seat are not a factor in establishing notability. CT55555 (talk) 17:11, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble is that every candidate in every election always gets some coverage of their campaign during the election, precisely because the media have an obligation to cover all candidates in any elections taking place in their coverage areas — so if campaign coverage were all it took to give a candidate a GNG-based exemption from having to pass NPOL, then every candidate would always get that exemption and NPOL itself would be meaningless because nobody would ever actually have to be measured against it. So the test that an unelected political candidate has to pass is not "does campaign coverage exist", it's "does the campaign coverage establish a compelling reason why the person's candidacy should be seen as much more important than everybody else's candidacies, in some way that would pass the will people still care about this ten years from now test for enduring significance". Bearcat (talk) 14:18, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that if people care about him in 10 years it will be he role at the PPC conference, his establishment of the LGBTQI+ org, his social media and influence and his leadership of the convoy, his islamophobia, more than his 2014 and 2015 political aspirations. I do think he is and will be notable in 2032, I think Ottawa events will be in the history books for some generations and I don't think the podcast guy currently sitting on $10m of donations will be disappearing from the limelight or public interest. CT55555 (talk) 14:24, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (I created this article) I recognize the good faith nature of the AfD, althought I disagree. I did invite discussion on the talk page to try to avoid AfD. I did consider carefully WP:BLP1E before starting this and I believe it does not apply. I also think that is clearer now than it was a few minutes ago, as I just added more content and sources, now that I realized this is being questioned. There is plenty secondary, reliable, independent sources that talk about his work to found a LGBTQ conservative group, him running for election in 2015, his controversial speech at a political event in 2019. The most in depth on is 1. The others are the most popular news sources in Canada. I hope that might sway you Ivanvector and thank you for your efforts to maintain standards, even if we disagree on this point (at this moment, as always, trying to keep an open mind, and reach consensus). CT55555 (talk) 17:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've done a lot of work on this article since it was PRODed, (now over double the length) with emphasis on 2014 to 2019 reporting, to address the specific concerns raised. That include his 2014 political run (in addition to his 2015 one) CT55555 (talk) 18:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the trucker convoy article, could be a brief section in the article, I don't think he's done much to get his own article. Take out the trucker protests, it's almost hopless trying to establish notability. Oaktree b (talk) 01:41, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I recognize there is a lot of passing mentions, but it's not difficult to establish notability outside the protests, which the majority of this article is about. Here's some examples in case this sways your perspective:
"True North Times" isn't a reliable or notability-assisting source at all; the Chronicle-Journal just glances off Dichter's existence in an article about somebody else; and fails to be about Benjamin Dichter in any notability-assisting way; and the Toronto.com hit is exactly the sort of routine "party selects candidate" blurb that every candidate for every party in every election always automatically gets in their district's local media, and thus doesn't help to build the notability of an unsuccessful candidacy since it doesn't establish that his candidacy was more special than other people's candidacies. Bearcat (talk) 14:23, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Requesting help from anyone who knows how to get this discussion listed at WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/People, WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Health_and_fitness, WikiProject Deletion sorting/COVID-19 I see User:CAPTAIN_RAJU you often do this sort of thing, in case you are willing to help, sorry, I do not understand the process for this, but these seems like relevant noticeboards. CT55555 (talk) 00:29, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Sexuality and gender, Islam, COVID-19, and South America. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:04, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm surprised given the prominent coverage about them. It's not B1D given the well-documented political history - and the activism. At best it's a redirect to the Ottawa occupation. Nfitz (talk) 23:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: giving it some more time now that it has been listed in the requested delsorts
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:14, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I disagree that WP:BLP1E applies here. BLP1E is only triggered if "each of three conditions is met". The first states that "reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event". Note the word "only": as explained at WP:NOTBLP1E, this does not mean "mostly in the context of a single event", nor does it mean "would not have been independently notable but for a single event". CT55555 has shown that Dichter received some coverage in reliable sources prior to 2022, and that's enough to render BLP1E inapplicable. I also find it very hard to believe that Dichter "remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual": seeking public office and speaking at party conventions aren't really hallmarks of low-profile individuals. Since this article isn't precluded by BLP1E, we're left with the GNG, which I think Dichter fairly clearly passes given the coverage of his role in the Ottawa events plus the pre-2022 sources. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:07, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Still not seeing anything notable about him, just appearing often in media as a mouthpiece for whatever political view he's spouting at that time. Sources are thin. Oaktree b (talk) 15:14, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, ONEEVENT applies. Optionally redirect to a relevant article on the Ottawa convoy. Stifle (talk) 09:31, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any noteworthy content to a relevant article about the convoy: not seeing substantial coverage outside the ONEEVENT. Springnuts (talk) 11:01, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect Looked at the first 8 references and couldn't identify any that were soley in-depth, or secondary and that were exclusively about Dichter. I would prefer delete if possible as I don't think he is is notable. When you see the WP:BLP1E mention, you always see the same to be three conditions shold met, but WP:BLP1E is really complex, so it is always general case applies. The guy is not notable. scope_creep^Talk 13:55, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would be great if the people who say that BLP1E applies could address the clear explanation of why it does not provided by Extraordinary Writ CT55555 (talk) 14:30, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment well for one thing there is argument based on WP:NOTBLP1E, which is an essay, not our policy. Springnuts (talk) 17:56, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's an essay, hosted on Wikipedia, that carefully and logically lays out how many people get BLP1E wrong. Essays, as per WP:ESSAY exist to help guide people, and indeed are not formal policy. So yes, it's optional, but I would still invite anyone to say so if they think anything in the essay is incorrect, or if its application to this situation is incorrect. CT55555 (talk) 13:24, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - clearly there is disagreement: that’s why we have this process. Springnuts (talk) 20:40, 27 March 2022 (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.

BJ Dichter

zproxy.org