Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Milo Cress

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]

Milo Cress

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

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 as an article created via block evasion by a banned account. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:27, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Environment, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:26, 25 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]
Keep - regardless if a sock-puppet or paid editor created an article, I think if a person is in fact notable based on significant coverage in reliable sources, then it should be kept. Bearian (talk) 14:43, 31 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.
Jo the fire dragon 🐉「talk」 05:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.