Talk:Pat Korte

notability

is this entry really necessary? i can think of a lot of people who have accomplished a lot more who are not on wikipedia. (User:138.238.223.25 23:44, 14 July 2006 UTC)

This entry is not necessary at all.( User:24.199.82.121 05:31, 18 November 2006 UTC)

self-promotion only makes media celebrities.........this movement does not need a spokesperson ( User:149.31.51.78 18:49, 19 November 2006 UTC)

I've removed the proposed deletion ("prod") tag as I believe there is a good-faith basis for asserting the notability of this subject and the deletion reason offered was insufficent. Feel free to continue discussion on this talkpage or to bring to AfD if desired. Newyorkbrad 17:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't remember too much about this. I created it for another editor. I don't mind what happens to this article, you can try listing it for discussion at Articles for Deletion.--Konstable 19:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

can this be marked for deletion? this absolutely ridiculous and an insult to activists who have done more than than reviving name out of the 1960s.( User:69.205.228.83 11:29, 29 August 2008 UTC)

This article insults nobody. If there are other notable activists that we should have articles about then the thing to do is to write those articles - not to delete this one. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The thing is Pat Korte is not a notable activist. The only reason he is in here becuase of the fetishism that goes along with the name SDS. There are no wikipedia entries for any of the founders or prominent members of United Students Against Sweatshops, which by all measures of a social movement has accomplished more than the revived SDS. It is an older, more developed, has won more campaigns with concrete goals (the anti-coke campaigns in many colleges is just as one example) and even has a spin off NGO, the Worker's Rights Consortium, that actually changes real things in the world economy. How can wikipedia justify an entry on Korte but not any of these USASSers? It seems like this is just building a celebrity out of 1960s nostalgia. Also by the standards of other entries marked for deletion in Wikipedia, this entry should go as well. Can you tell explain, for example, why the notability of this article is questioned, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ravi_Arvind_Palat, but the notability of Pat Korte isn't? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.207.201.177 (talk) 15:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

That's wonderful: find third party sources and write articles about them. That has no bearing on existing, referenced articles just because you don't like the subject. Note also that the article you mention above is NOT marked for deletion but for improvement, largely because " Very few or no other articles link to it, It may have been edited by a person who has a conflict of interest with the subject matter, It is an autobiography, or has been extensively edited by the subject, and may not conform to NPOV policy." I can only assume Ravi Arvind Palat is you. Please read Wikipedia policies on this, and keep the discussion of Ravi Arvind Palat on that talk page. This talk page is for discussion of this article not for discussion of the relative merits of its subject. Also please sign you comments with four tildes. T L Miles (talk) 16:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Notability is not the same as accomplishment. For a definition of what is meant by Wikipedia notability for people see WP:BIO. Pat Korte meets this guideline by virtue of the fact that he has been written by publications such as The New York Times[1], The Chicago Tribune[2], The New Statesman[3], CBS News[4] and The New Yorker[5]. In the case of Ravi Arvind Palat his notability will no longer be questioned if you can provide such reliable sources, and if any of the USASS people you mentioned above have received significant coverage from publications such as these you are welcome to write an article about them. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't really understand why Pat Korte is notable but the same amount of effort hasn't been put into creating an entry for the WOMAN that also worked on rebooting SDS: Jessica Rapchik. This entry should be deleted in favour of simply mentioning Korte's role in helping founding SDS on the actual SDS article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.38.134 (talk) 22:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The answer to that is to put in the effort into creating an article on Jessica Rapchik, not to try to delete the article on Pat Korte or to remove material from it. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no way to make this article anything but a stub. Mr. Korte is easily available by e-mail so I suggest you talk to him yourself as I'm sure he shares the sentiment that this doesn't belong on Wikipedia. You seem to the sole dissent in a field of no small number of people who are agitating for this pages deletion. Ms. Rapchik doesn't need a separate article and neither does Mr. Korte. His notability for the sake of this discussion is limited solely to having been a contributor (among many) to the refounding of SDS. His current activities don't hold notability aside from him being a good activist among a field of many SDSers (some of whom are much better known, and none of those people merit an article yet) and this article will always be stub and it does not meet the standards for notability. Delete this. article.22:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.194.65 (talk)

This article has been nominated for deletion. SamuraiDiscoCat (talk) 22:47, 6 December 2008 (UT

The quotations are interesting. Maybe one could merge them with the Students for a Democratic Society (2006 organization)? Trying to be as objective as I can be, I recommend that this stub must be removed.Aruhnka (talk) 10:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

hahaha. Half of the arguments on this page are made by jealous identity-obsessed SDSers. --69.212.52.231 (talk) 19:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)