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 delete--
Ymblanter (
talk) 07:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)reply
The article has been tagged with notability concerns since late last year and an IP recently raised notability concerns at
WP:BLP/N. Seems to be well-known for only one thing - his involvement in controversy around a particular photo. Unless we can substantiate notability for
more than one event, we probably shouldn't have an article about this individual.
Stalwart111 00:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete. This does look like BLP1E, but even if not, I'm not seeing the significant third party coverage for anything else.
Niteshift36 (
talk) 00:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete - Clearly doesn't meet our
WP:BIO criteria, even BLP1E criteria is severely lacking.
Shadowjams (
talk) 01:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete I wouldn't even say this is a BLP1E, because this was decidedly a non-event. The Trayvon Martin case is obviously notable, this photo incident does, IMHO, not even deserve a footnote in that article. --
Randykitty (
talk) 07:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom and above. Sources are inadequate. I don't even understand why the Capital source is news.
Grayfell (
talk) 07:20, 6 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete. Randykitty and Stalwart are correct.
Drmies (
talk) 19:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete - Does not meet the WP:BIO criteria. One controversy does not notability make.
CrookedwithaK (
talk) 09:59, 10 February 2014 (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.