Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nico Hines: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
→‎Nico Hines: clarify :^)
Line 23: Line 23:
*'''Speedy delete''' under [[WP:G10]]. The controversy is worth mentioning on [[The Daily Beast]] (where it is indeed covered), but there's insufficient justification for a separate article, and especially not one framed as a BLP. [[User:Robofish|Robofish]] ([[User talk:Robofish|talk]]) 23:30, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
*'''Speedy delete''' under [[WP:G10]]. The controversy is worth mentioning on [[The Daily Beast]] (where it is indeed covered), but there's insufficient justification for a separate article, and especially not one framed as a BLP. [[User:Robofish|Robofish]] ([[User talk:Robofish|talk]]) 23:30, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
:*<s>'''Keep''', now that [[Special:PermanentLink/734659619|significant improvements]] have been made to the article.</s> ''[[user talk:generic hipster|generic_hipster]]'' 23:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
:*<s>'''Keep''', now that [[Special:PermanentLink/734659619|significant improvements]] have been made to the article.</s> ''[[user talk:generic hipster|generic_hipster]]'' 23:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
*'''Merge''', keeping the history, to ''The Daily Beast'': fails [[WP:JOURNALIST|the inclusion guideline]] for journalists. ''[[user talk:generic hipster|generic_hipster]]'' 00:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
*'''Merge''', keeping the history due to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Daily_Beast#Nico_Hines.2C_and_controversies_in_general ongoing talks] at the talk page for ''The Daily Beast''. This article appears to fail [[WP:JOURNALIST|the inclusion guideline]] for journalists. ''[[user talk:generic hipster|generic_hipster]]'' 06:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:53, 16 August 2016

Nico Hines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This guy has not done anything noteworthy besides writing one controversial article on a website. He deserves mention on The Daily Beast's article, but is not even close to deserving his own page. BaseballPie (talk) 18:36, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. JudgeRM (talk to me) 19:39, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: too soon. Give it a few weeks for more articles on this guy to surface. He will soon warrant an article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.112.153 (talk) 21:01, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. JudgeRM (talk to me) 19:41, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. JudgeRM (talk to me) 19:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The incident itself also does not come close to deserving an article. It deserves at best a short paragraph on the Daily Beast page, which is what it has right now. Finally, the "just wait and see... this guy is evil and we will soon learn more" argument is just plain silly and about as far away from meeting the relevant standards as you can get. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BaseballPie (talkcontribs) 22:31, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that Hines has other mentions in the media, or awards for his work with the times, that would warrant an article. This article is pretty shoddy, and needs to be worked on more carefully. 66.87.113.199 (talk) 22:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:40, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]