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. Regardless of COI, experienced (and non-ip) editors here all have consensus for a keep.
(non-admin closure)TLA(talk) 03:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Here's a young man who made the papers in 2018 and started an organization--but none of the info on either rises to the level of notability by our standards. Also, the article was written up by one of the many, many socks of
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Factsonlyplease39/Archive, Best Known For writing up truly awful and poorly verified biographies.
Drmies (
talk) 23:20, 24 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Speedy delete Poor quality article and he doesn't seem noteworthy. I tried to make it less like advertising, but somehow that has been undone. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
RobinJames68 (
talk •
contribs) 23:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep - it sounds like there is a rush to judgment on the basis of the creator's bad record, but this article seems to meet
WP:N - this kid has been written up in the NYT and other high-profile national / regional media.
Llajwa (
talk) 17:05, 27 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Owen×☎ 00:16, 1 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment My vote to speedy delete was deemed invalid, because other editors have contributed to the article since it was created by a sockpuppet. I'd still vote for deletion based on
WP:NOTNEWS. The subject briefly enjoyed coverage for one endeavor, but doesn't meet enduring notability standards. (This is a derivation of my previous opinion, not an attempt to enter a second vote).
2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (
talk) 00:50, 3 February 2024 (UTC)reply
FYI you're allowed to edit your own past messages.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
The Herald (Benison) (
talk) 04:45, 9 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: Christian Science Monitor and the NY Times are good articles, rest help notability.
Oaktree b (
talk) 16:36, 9 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: per others. I also note the coverage about him is over a period of years so not churnalism.
S0091 (
talk) 17:34, 15 February 2024 (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.