Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Pruitt

Steven Pruitt

Steven Pruitt (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)

Not notable, permission not given for creation by Ser Amantio di Nicolao. Mrmei 22:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• Keep. Permission not needed. Coverage in El Diario [1] and Time [2] is enough for WP:GNG, and widely-enough separated in time to prevent this from being a case for BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
• Keep. As per David Eppstein. If James Heilman deserves one, so does Steven Pruitt. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• Delete as nominator. Mrmei 22:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• Mrmei, I have stricken your above delete !vote, as per WP:AFDFORMAT, which states, "Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line." Everymorning (talk) 22:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• Keep. Press coverage fine, and we don't normally ask the subjects of our articles for permission. Ser Amantio was one of my first contacts here, because I recognized his name from Gianni Schichi, my favourite opera. Brianboulton, author of that and many other featured articles, should perhaps also be featured in an article? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:08, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Over my dead body. Brianboulton (talk) 22:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Sure thing, Brian. You'll enjoy it. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
• Keep. As per David Eppstein Wikipeida is an encyclopedia, not a book. Policy doesn't require permission of the subject to make an article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
• Unsure while there is some verification for this, unsure about the wisdom of having this article given it is about a Wikipedia editor and there are BLP issues as well as Internet privacy issues. Capitalistroadster (talk) 22:52, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  • (Point of order): Is the subject of this article: {a) excused from commenting by dint of common politeness; {b) prohibited from commenting by COI (c) required to comment in order to give his permission (d) something else? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
• Keep per Martinevans123 's response. NikolaiHo^☎️ 02:55, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
• Delete, though I'm flattered to have been considered. Various issues, none of them having anything to do with BLP issues (believe me, I'm fine with anything in the article appearing publicly. I'm an open book, generally speaking.) But I've never been convinced that there are enough sources to currently justify writing me up. There aren't but four, after all...and there are aspects of my life missing from them all (birth date, birthplace, etc.) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 06:58, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
• Merge Suggest we have a List of Wikipedia people and Steve has a section. The recognition by Time is great but do we really have enough material for a biography? I wouldn't want one if ever I got coverage for most articles created personally. I think we should wait until there is more coverage like Rosie has had for his own article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:00, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
• KeepIm agree with @David Eppstein Amirdaeii (talk) 07:32, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
• Keep Meets GNG. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:53, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
• Keep other editors have attracted media attention for GNG over much weirder aspects of their editing history, David Eppstein and Andy Mabbett have the answer it meets the requirement JarrahTree 10:42, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
• Delete No clear reason for the article's existence, and sure, Jimbo deserves an article, but as per SADN, not WP:Notable. Sure, he has 2 million plus edits, I have 2 million plus bacteria on my toilet seat. I consider notability to be something you can put on a resume and have the interviewer want to hire you immediately, or not hire you at all. Sure having two million edits to Wikipedia is impressive, but you put that on your resume and the guy will probably just go "cool" and pass right over it. Metmeganslay 00:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)