Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Eisenkop (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 18:16, 31 July 2014

Ben Eisenkop

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NTEMP states: "...that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." I believe that in light of recent events, following his shadowban from Reddit, that "Unidan's" notability will proceed no further from it's already questionable state. Joobah (talk) 02:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's best to keep. The sources in the article are all fine. Heck. The Daily Dot even covered his banning: [1]. Ryan Nohomersryan (talk) 03:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's no rush. We don't have to guess how an event may impact the subject's long-term notability the very next day after said event. Give it a few months; see what happens. Melchoir (talk) 05:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per what Oreo Priest said in the previous nomination: "Mashable, Fox News, Time Warner Cable News, the Binghamton University Pipe Dream newspaper, the Daily Dot and the University of Melbourne have all decided that he's notable enough to devote an article specifically to him. That's significant coverage in multiple published reliable sources independent of each other and the subject. That's a clear pass of WP:BIO." Trinitresque (talk) 05:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons stated by Joobah. Low notability and unlikely to grow as popularity of himself and reddit wane. --OKNoah (talk) 08:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. If we covered every minor Internet celebrity with insignificant news coverage, Wikipedia would run out of server space. 70.36.222.87 (talk) 08:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but I don't think his being banned from Reddit should play any part in deciding whether the page should be kept (if anything, that makes him slightly more notable, not less). I just think Reddit celebrities aren't the sort of things we should be keeping track of on Wikipedia. --Gro-Tsen (talk) 12:58, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He passes WP:BIO quite clearly. We cannot cherry pick which subjects to allow and disallow on Wikipedia - most of the deletes seem to be WP:IDONTLIKEITs. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 13:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: And why exactly would we delete the article now? Wait until things die down, and then, if he loses his notability, delete. The first AFD resulted in a keep, why try this again? --Rockstonetalk to me! 13:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete*: We don't have pages for other Reddit celebrities, such as karmanaut or Apostolate, why should we have one for Unidan? Swamp85 (talk) 18:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if there are sources about those two, then they can have an article. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 18:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They've never done anything notable, and neither has Unidan. That's my point. Swamp85 (talk) 18:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per reasons stated above. LaserWraith (talk) 18:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 ::Well, if there are sources about those two, then they can have an article. '''''[[User:Taylor Trescott|<span style="color:#B6B3FF; font-family: Courier">Taylor Trescott</span>]]''''' - <sup>[[User talk:Taylor Trescott#top|my talk]]</sup> + <sub>[[Special:Contributions/Taylor Trescott|my edits]]</sub> 18:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 :::They've never done anything notable, and neither has Unidan. That's my point. [[User:Swamp85|Swamp85]] ([[User talk:Swamp85|talk]]) 18:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
-*'''Keep''' as per reasons stated above.
+*'''Keep''' as per reasons stated above. [[User:Jeremysbost|LaserWraith]] ([[User talk:Jeremysbost|talk]]) 18:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)