Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Mendelsohn

Tom Mendelsohn

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

Fails WP:GNG- no 'significant coverage' and such coverage as it has is solely WP:PRIMARY, and neither third-party nor independent. Specifically fails WP:JOURNALIST, as subject is neither widely cited or a creator. Non-notable individual. _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:37, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. Also appears to be a bit of a magnet for people with a grudge. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:40, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this now-stubbed attack piece. E Eng 13:42, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article appears to have been created as an attack page. The very first revision was by Tom Mendelsohn who contested the charge in the article, but was promptly reverted by the author. WP:CSD#G10 may be in order here. Bradv 13:43, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- He contested sourced facts that he is proud to admit to his friends. Lord help us if we let every person do that '''tAD''' (talk) 13:53, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The idea that using sources that reflect that a journalist admitted to publishing race-bait troll pieces on a major British newspaper's website is "rumour" or "attack" is ridiculous. Funny how after the world gasped as a privileged white male had his sentence watered down, we now rush to protect another privileged, elite-schooled white boy from having publicly known facts (that he admitted himself! [1]) made public. Are articles on other similar people like Rod Liddle, Richard Littlejohn, Katie Hopkins and Milo Yiannopoulos "attack pages" for documenting their controversies? '''tAD''' (talk) 13:50, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It only has primary sources as the third-party one was deleted for documenting things that the subject regrets '''tAD''' (talk) 13:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: (after (edit conflict)) Created as an unbalanced attack page, when stripped back there is no significant coverage in RS to justify a claim of notability. Subject has requested deletion at BLP/N and with such sparse coverage, this request should be respected. Also note that the article subject has edited it twice as an IP and then once as a registered editor and been threatened with a block for edit warring, so we have a BITE situation too, sadly. EdChem (talk) 13:52, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The only "attack" was to misconstrue him as the writer of that troll piece when he was just the self-confessed publisher who showed no contrition. And now this all gets treated as if he had absolutely nothing to do with it and I was accusing him of a part in the Kennedy assassination. '''tAD''' (talk) 14:01, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]