Talk:Ryan Binkley

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 25 February 2024[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Although some of the !votes were barren of rationale, there is a clear consensus against the proposed move at this time. BD2412 T 21:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Binkley → Ryan Binkley 2024 presidential campaign – Ryan Binkley, the individual, is not notable per WP:BIO, however, is campaign is. The proper scope of this article should be Ryan Binkley 2024 presidential campaign, a short biographical section can be included about Binkley there. This will also solve the article's recentism slant. Scu ba (talk) 18:36, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose: Per WP:NPOL, Binkley deserves an article at least on the basis of his campaign. His notability extends beyond the campaign: Binkley's work with the Generational Group received coverage in 2021 ([1]), Binkley's work as a pastor received coverage in 2020 ([2]). In 2019, Binkley received the Hugh O'Brian Youth Leadership Foundation's Albert Schweitzer Leadership Award (press release). He's been somewhat notable for some time, and certainly enough to merit his own article. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:01, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    and certainly enough to merit his own article. Just no. Per WP:FORBESCON, that article cannot be used. Self published press releases also don't count under WP:SPS. churchexecutive.com is a blog (that has been used in 0 wikipedia articles) and cannot be used under WP:BLOG. please read the WP:BIO rules (The article title should define what the article is about). I've checked, he has 0 of the 3 necessary notable sources to warrant a stand alone biography apart from his campaign. To quote WP:NPOL, Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability Scu ba (talk) 19:32, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Church Executive is an emagazine, not a blog. The article linked was that issue's cover story. An award from a notable organization also contributes significantly to independent notability. Additionally, amending your comment to insert BATTLEGROUND language after repeatedly violating the move policy on this page before consenting to this discussion is really pushing the envelope. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article you specifically cited is in their blog section.
    Home>Blog>LEADERSHIP>church growth>RYAN BINKLEY & CREATE CHURCH: Welcoming by (divine) design
    Regardless of if you don't like me, that doesn't mean that he is notable. Scu ba (talk) 19:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I also recommend you brush up on WP:GNG WP:BLP and WP:RS, none of the sources you provided were notable, or reliable. 19:53, 25 February 2024 (UTC) Scu ba (talk) 19:53, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're ignoring an RS because the accessible version was filed coded under "blog", despite it obviously being the cover story of an organization with an editorial staff and being published by the admin account. You then ignore an award for an unstated reason. Adding you don't like me makes no sense, either, and runs contrary to AGF. The recent AfD made it clear that the community favors the article as it is, given that no ATD was selected. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:00, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you prove they have an editoral staff. The website has been cited 0 times across Wikipedia. You'd think if they were a reliable source they would have been mentioned at least once. It's a blog, run by one person as far as I can tell. Sure you can print out a blog and call it a "Magazine" but in reality it's a zine.
    AfD Again, I am not proposing deleting the article, I never proposed deleting the article in this debate. Not sure why you keep saying that I do. The article is talking about his campaign, barely about Binkley as a person. The article's title, should reflect that.
    There are 0 notable, reliable sources talking about Binkley prior to running for president. The only reason he has any notability, is because he is running for president. This is like, for example, the Murder of Laci Peterson has an article, but Laci Peterson herself does not. Because she, as an individual, isn't notable, but her murder was. Binkley, as an individual, isn't notable, but his campaign is. 20:08, 25 February 2024 (UTC) Scu ba (talk) 20:08, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure how me pointing out the WP:FORBESCON and two WP:SPS is "Battleground" language. Scu ba (talk) 20:15, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Look at the diff I linked. That's not the BATTLEGROUND language. Anyhow, your work to exclusively make the article about his campaign is also noticeable. I'll be sure to fix that. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:22, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I went back and read the article's you cited and they are actually the opposite of notable sources.
    A forbes contributor article
    Some blog about churches
    a press release from an award whose own Wikipedia page states:The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies and organizations.'
    Scu ba (talk) 20:39, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For those interested, a WP:RSN discussion (link) concurs that Church Executive is a reliable source and not a blog. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:03, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject United States has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:50, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:CONCISE. Even if he's notable solely for running for President, he's still notable. He's been reported on by reliable sources. Readers searching for him will search for his name. The proposal would just turn his name into a redirect, and I see no point to that. Station1 (talk) 08:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Following the debates on Binkley's notability on Wikipedia has been interesting the past year. Generally, I find the idea that the coverage is centered on his campaign and that is what is notable persuasive. I'd support a move and this case reminds me of the Yaroslav Hunka scandal article, which initially survived AFD as a biography, but was then moved to its current location based on the reliable source coverage. Binkley strikes me as a similar case, not quite notable as a person, but notable for an event they were involved in (here, his campaign). TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 19:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a decidedly different situation. In the prior case you identified, the person in question had not done anything notable (according to Wikipedia's standards) prior to the scandal and there was no SIGCOV of the individual that predated the scandal. In this case, the individual founded a church and a business, receiving SIGCOV in a trade journal for his work in both. He was later given an award by a notable organization. This was all prior to his presidential campaign. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I just don't think you're correct. Hunka had a research endowment named after him and received awards from expatriate organizations and civic orgs in Ukraine, receiving some coverage. He was roughly as notable before his scandal as Binkley was before his presidential campaign.
    Plus, we can definitively say before Binkley's presidential campaign he did not meet notability guidelines, because his page was deleted for that reason multiple times. Any argument he met notability guidelines for his coverage in reliable sources before his presidential campaign is proven wrong by the two 2023 AFDs. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 23:09, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's actually a bit incorrect. First off, the first AfD resulted in a deletion because of inadequate sourcing in the article (despite adequate sourcing existing); the delete !votes were largely single-line statements that fail the DINC sniff test. The second AfD went through despite considerable sourcing to the contrary (and occurred well into his campaign). The third AfD rectified the earlier mistakes by a consensus that included far more editors. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:24, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Expoe34 (talk) 05:27, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be much preferred if you could provide a rationale for your !vote. Esolo5002 (talk) 00:45, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 04:17, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be much preferred if you could provide a rationale for your !vote. Esolo5002 (talk) 00:45, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think Binkley’s page should remain a separate entity because his campaign is not as notable as someone like Asa Hutchinson’s even if he received more votes, Asa participated in a debate and had some media coverage initially, so I think Binkley should continue to have his own article and section for his campaign, and I don’t think it should be deleted because he’s a successful businessman who is notable in the pastoral field MoMoChohan (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. Same as my rationale on the last deletion discussion, Binkley has no coverage in reliable sources prior to his run for President. Esolo5002 (talk) 00:45, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is false, as this Church Executive article was reviewed at RSN and determined as reliable. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is false, as that is one source, he needs at least three. Scu ba (talk) 06:42, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing I said was false, I was replying to the demonstrably false statement Brinkley has no coverage in reliable sources prior to his run for President. Additionally, please follow through on your promise at WP:ANEW to stay away from this page. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:07, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One source is not sufficient. Three is the general standard. Esolo5002 (talk) 07:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Esolo5002, could you link to a policy or guideline that requires three? Thanks! — Frostly (talk) 19:24, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not a guideline per se, but Wikipedia:Multiple sources. WP:GNG required more than 1 reliable source and 3 is generally considered sufficient. Esolo5002 (talk) 21:43, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like those are for establishing notability of article subjects. I think that just one reliable source is enough for coverage in the article. Frostly (talk) 00:50, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't really matter whether or not he had coverage before he ran for President. He's notable now. Station1 (talk) 13:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is false, per WP:Politician: Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline. Scu ba (talk) 14:21, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but he does meet the general notability guidelines. Station1 (talk) 15:59, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you elaborate? He doesn't have three notable RS' Scu ba (talk) 17:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure where three comes from, but a google search shows plenty of mainstream coverage, and there's plenty in the article from USA Today, Reuters, Politico, Newsweek, the Guardian, The Hill, etc. If you say he's only notable for running for President, ok, that's why he's notable. The guideline doesn't say an unelected candidate for office can't be notable just for running, only that they're not automatically notable. There are some candidates for office, even for President, who get no coverage, but he's not one of them. Station1 (talk) 18:11, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So that's two, one from the church magazine, and one about his presidential candidacy. the whole point of the or an unelected candidate for political office rule existing so that people can't just procure 20 sources about the same election and count those as notable sources. So in practice, we have one source from his candidacy, and you'd new two notable and reliable sources from before his candidacy, and we have one of those so far. Scu ba (talk) 22:19, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Clearly meets WP:GNG, and for more than just his campaign... even if that occupies the majority of the article, his other bio aspects have become notable too.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:38, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you explain what you mean by this? What bio aspects? Esolo5002 (talk) 06:31, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this article is obviously about the LIFE of Ryan Binkley, not just his campaign. We can make another page just for his campaign. LordBirdWord (talk) 02:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ryan_Binkley&oldid=1213031413"