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

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 no consensus. There is plainly no consensus on whether Eisenkop meets the GNG based on what is in the article. Unfortunately a great many of these comments are of the "just notable/just not notable" variety, and with the discussion plainly swamped by so many persons unfamiliar with our policies it's hard to tell if there is a consensus. No prejudice to another discussion in a few weeks, once the situation on Reddit has cooled a bit, to see if agreement can be reached one way or the other. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:43, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Eisenkop

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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]
- (By the way, on the merits, I also think the article should be kept, as its references pass the general notability guideline. This is the reason the article was kept the first time around.) Melchoir (talk) 22:27, 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]

Is his TEDx talk, the book he's working on, and the fact that he writes for "Mental Floss" not "anything notable"? --Sauronjim (talk) 19:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The fact someone has written a book or made a video does not warrant an article. If we used these standards, anyone who'd ever written for any college newspaper would have one and our servers would crash. Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 10:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What does warrant a standalone article is significant coverage from numerous reliable, independent sources, and Unidan meets this criteria. Breadblade (talk) 11:55, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per reasons stated above. LaserWraith (talk) 18:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Mr Eisenkop has not only become a major piece of news in the online community, but has been talked about in a number of mainstream news sources (as discussed above). He's also done TEDx talks, writes for a major publication, and is working on publishing a book. He's easily notable enough to have an article about him. --Sauronjim (talk) 18:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unidan is a notable Reddit celebrity, and the article has several sources, spanning more than a year, so WP:NTEMP doesn't hold. AlmostGrad (talk) 19:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The original article was not notable, given that there was very little biographical information, and the lack of actual notability. Now there is even less so.Screen317 (talk) 20:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being "popular" on reddit doesn't make someone noteworthy, or notable. All articles are on the same topic, him being popular on reddit, and now about him being unpopular, seems a bit tautological. WP:1E and WP:NOTWHOSWHO also seem to justify flagging this for deletion. Esox id^{talk•contribs} 20:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. His article already clearly passes WP:GNG and WP:NTEMP does not apply, as he has both actively sought out public attention through venues such as TEDx and has received significant media coverage for multiple independent events. His shadowban has only attracted more media coverage, and hasn't kept him off reddit in the first place. I will echo the sentiment that many of the articles against this article seem to come from the standpoint of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT Breadblade (talk) 21:04, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable for all reasons stated [above]. Just another sad notch in the history of small time Internet celebrities. Michael S., 21:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.61.82.2 (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tutelary (talk) 00:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Certainly no pass of WP:Prof. Too thin for WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, for all the reasons already given. Also, I propose sanctions on the user Joobah, who seems to be a sockpuppet created solely for the purposes of deleting this page. Sorry, dude, an event making a subject more notable is not an excuse for you again to try and delete pages you don't like. Stroller (talk) 22:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete*: For all reasons above. He accomplishments are not significant to deem a Wikipedia article. 73.177.162.97 (talk) 01:08, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable yet. He is a writer for a minor publication, a grad student, and has been using a popular internet site to share his ideas. None of this comes even close to passing notability guidelines, and having it just makes us presentist and cluttered with people of no permanent note.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. There's articles from three sources he's not affiliated with, so it's something. However, most of the stuff in his entry is cruft. Specific classes he teaches? A fan on improv? None of those have anything to do with why he's mildly famous. --Wirbelwind(ヴィルヴェルヴィント) 03:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This person is pretty much completely non-notable outside of his own internet community as far as I can see, and now he is banned even from there. - Rathersilly (talk) 09:51, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG, for reasons stated above. Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable enough!Tbecknv (talk) 19:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC) — Tbecknv (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - I think it's odd how there was no concern about this individual's notability before a few days ago since there was coverage to meet WP:GNG, but then one more event happens and that is the one even that warrants citing (ironically enough) WP:NTEMP? The first sentence of WP:NTEMP refutes the nominator's rationale; "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." Saying that he was banned from Reddit and therefore will gain no additional ongoing coverage from that is ignoring the fact that notability is already established. That the nominator thinks that no additional notability will be shown is irrelevant to that. - Aoidh (talk) 20:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. We had this discussion 6 months ago - it's inappropriate to revisit it the week Eisenkop did something unpopular. Personally, I'm happy to review this article sometime next year, but not as part of an ongoing witch-hunt by the users of a large social media site. Stroller (talk) 00:06, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And just to clarify, the article definitely meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC; it is the subject of multiple reliable third-party sources and the new accounts being created and infrequent editors coming back just to comment on this AfD are not taking that into account, that sources dictate notability, not subjective opinions on the content of the work. - Aoidh (talk) 00:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see significant coverage in reliable sources for at least two events. Meets WP:GNG. Antrocent (♫♬) 21:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons stated in 1st AfD. Once again, many of the "keeps" are simply assertion. The extremely weak sources resulted in no consensus last time and it's no surprise at all that the article is back again. Agricola44 (talk) 21:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Weak Delete - This is yet another case of reddit trying to act like things they find important are notable from an encyclopaedic perspective. Aoidh's argument that "there was no concern about this individual's notability before a few days ago" is, in my view, a non-sequitur. People will notice mistakes at different points in time. Saying "this mistake hasn't been noticed before" is pointless. It's been noticed now, and it's being discussed now. Besides, there clearly has been concern before, and a consensus was never reached. Long story short, this boils down to whether or not Eisenkop meets WP:GNG. Is there significant coverage? No. There is coverage, but it's a "slow news day" kind of thing. Are there reliable secondary sources? Sure, a handful. So, if you squint your eyes really hard, you might claim that there might be a case for a possible assumption (not guarantee) of notability, maybe. That's where WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTNEWS come into play. Apples grow on pines (talk) 02:43, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. It's not "this mistake hasn't been noticed before", because there was a previous AfD. Your argument is based on the assumption that this non-notable article just wasn't noticed before, when that is demonstratably not the case. It's "being noticed now" under the assumption that no more notability will be given for the subject, and that this somehow renders the previous notability moot; it does not. That is the point I was making. In addition, there are many more sources now than there was at the previous AfD when there was a "no consensus" bordering on keep, an AfD that just happened in April. WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTNEWS don't "come into play" as they aren't even relevant here. - Aoidh (talk) 06:33, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wait. I think it would be most prudent to give this a week or two to settle down, then proceed with the AfD process. There's no reason we have to decide forever right this minute whether or not the article can stay. It's not as if the article is permanently sullying Wikipedia or anything by sitting there for a little bit, right? --Roman à clef (talk) 10:26, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete checking the article I see barely anything that comes anywhere near establishing notability. None of the keeps have been very persuading. This is not a debate as to weather or not a reddit celeb can be notable, it's about this one person and this one person falls short of the GNG in my eyes. Ridernyc (talk) 23:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article's subject has been the subject of multiple reliable third-party sources. That is the criteria of WP:GNG, and your rationale fails to explain how that doesn't meet WP:GNG; what is it you think "establishing notability" means? The sources establish notability, not an opinion on whether he "looks" notable "in your eyes". - Aoidh (talk) 00:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Internet celebrities are barely notable as is, and Unidan would be a D-list if there was a scale; the only thing of note he has done outside of Reddit is a singular TED Talk, which (in itself) owes a great deal to his Reddit fame. Save for being a vandalism risk from Reddit users, all the page will do is remain a stub indefinitely. TinyTedDanson (talk) 01:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article seems to meet the WP:GNG, with sufficient secondary coverage in reliable sources such as Daily Dot, Mashable, FoxNews, and other such things. Additionally, seeing that he was interviewed by an educational institution is also somewhat telling. Additionally, Vice covering this ban of this specific user is also very specific and telling. Tutelary (talk) 15:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very little notability, even on the internet (there are Facebook pages, with no Wikipedia articles, with hundreds of thousands of likes per post and comment; Unidan receives a tiny, tiny fraction of that). It fails WP:PROF outright, and the entire article is a result of a small number fans using Wikipedia to make the subject look universally famous. The only reason this discussion appears to have survived a Delete vote last time was because someone posted a link to it on a reddit post about the article, leading to a vote brigade. Ithinkicahn (talk) 20:47, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is based on reliable sources, of which this subject has sufficient coverage in. Vague relation to the number of likes on Facebook is irrelevant to notability, and WP:PROF is not the only criteria for notability; the subject meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC and then some. There's also very little in the previous AfD that isn't from established, frequent editors, but that's ultimately irrelevant as there are even more sources now than there were at the previous AfD, which was only a few months ago. Citing WP:CRUFT falls apart when you look at the sources; Wikipedia editors aren't the ones writing Fox News and Vice articles about the individual. - Aoidh (talk) 20:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject has done a fairly popular TEDx talk, is a very well known (and now controversial) user on a large social media website (reddit), and has been covered by a number of news websites. I'd say that he meets the notability requirements. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 03:00, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnotable entirely. Has made no contributions other than briefly having a lot of karma on Reddit once. Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 10:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The person does not need to have made any contributions. As long as they meet the requirements for the general notability guideline, the person is notable. We have multiple reliable sources dictating this, including Vice, Fox News, Mashable, Daily Dot, and other high quality sources. Tutelary (talk) 11:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how he meets any of those. Significant coverage is the main issue, and he has none. Beyond one or two brief mentions of the fact he was a popular Reddit user, there's nothing. This can be found for all sorts of internet celebrities. For example, Frank Neal Garrett is mentioned relatively often for being a prank call victim. But he has no page because that alone doesn't make him notable, despite the popularity of the calls and his voice on YouTube. Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 11:17, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Articles which cover Unidan directly and in detail: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13. In other words, WP:SIGCOV is achieved very easily in this article's sources, what the heck are you talking about? Breadblade (talk) 11:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An impressive looking list until you see that these sources include things like personal student blogs. Many of them are also from his university, so they fail to be independent of the subject. Most of them are also just about his ban, a one-off event that, if anything, reduces his notability as he is now less likely to ever be notable.

So of these, arguably only the Fox News one is a significant, independent source that goes any way towards establishing notability. Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 12:46, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most of them are also just about his ban, which is perfectly adequate, because it gives us even more reliable sources about the individual, cementing the notion that this person is notable. if anything, reduces his notability as he is now less likely to ever be notable. Nope, notability is not temporary. If he meets the general notability guideline, he is notable. Also, saying that 'Fox News' is the only source which is reliable that demonstrates notability is misleading, there are many, many that do so. Just look at Breadblade's reply. He is notable. Tutelary (talk) 14:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About the pages about the ban, are we going to make a page for everyone who gets articles written for them because they get caught doing something shocking? By that logic every upstanding citizen who went streaking or every normal-seeming sex offender would have their own article. As it stands Eisenkop was not notable before and the ban only makes it less likely that he will achieve notability. And I was specifically replying to his reply - note that it included personal blogs and sources that were not independent of the subject. Beyond that Fox was the only source not discussing his ban. I'm sorry but getting banned from a website does not make someone notable. Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 15:00, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If his ban weren't notable, it wouldn't have received coverage from multiple independent news sources such as the Daily Dot, Vice and Mashable. But it has, and it is. Breadblade (talk) 18:48, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Dot is a very small, obscure source who's purpose is to report on internet events. The ban is only notable to a small subculture - its like a local paper reporting that a man was caught streaking. We're not going to make a page for someone because of that. Otherwise Wikipedia would be filled with "X was a popular user on Y who was banned", or "X was an upstanding citizen who ran around naked after a bender". Heck most of the people on the Florida Man Twitter would get a page, since they did something outrageous that was reported by a wide variety of news outlets. Do you think the man who robbed a house and left his cell phone, then later called to ask for it back warrants a page? Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 23:40, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can sense a lot of goalpost-moving happening here. Wikipedia sources don't have to be New York Times articles for purposes of notability. I don't think the Florida Man analogy makes any sense so I'm not going to comment on it. Breadblade (talk) 23:53, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The goalposts aren't being moved - sources like personal student blogs and sources that are not independent of the subject matter have never been counted. Also, to be honest, I think there might be a conflict of interest here. You talk on your userpage about being listed on DailyDot as the 7th most influential user of the site Reddit. You stand to benefit a lot from the result of this decision, as the argument you're using is essentially that if sources like DailyDot speak about a Reddit user, they should have a page. Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 00:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If there had been nothing but "personal student blogs" that would be a valid point, but unless Vice and Fox News are "personal student blogs", that's completely irrelevant. WP:GNG has been mopre than met for this article, "personal student blogs" have nothing to do with that. - Aoidh (talk) 00:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, let's stay on topic here. I don't want a Wikipedia page so don't try and assign me motivations that I don't have. Breadblade (talk) 16:40, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have no way of seeing a person's motivations so we can't use their word about them to evaluate these things. Like WP:COI says, "A judge's primary role as an impartial adjudicator would be undermined by her secondary role as the defendant's wife". Its a matter of relation to the subject matter that causes the conflict of interest. Even if the judge intended to be as impartial as possible, their relation to the matter at hand creates the COI. Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 23:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These are ridiculous insinuations about Breadblade's motivations, and constitute speculation at best. Do you really think they want a Wikipedia article declaring them the moderator of /r/circlejerk? And even if they did, that they have decided that getting Unidan into Wikipedia is the way to get there? AlmostGrad (talk) 06:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The source list reported above by Breadblade is representative of the WP:INDISCRIMINATE "keep" position: it consists mostly of student newspaper/university PR and social media and blogs. I thought perhaps the Cornell Sun article (#3 in that last) might count, but that has only trivial mention. Agricola44 (talk) 16:06, 4 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]

He's been covered by the Daily Dot, Mashable, Vice, Fox News and Time Warner Cable News in addition to the student publications. Eisenkop was brought up three separate times in the Cornell Sun article, as he was a guest speaker at that event. That is more than trivial coverage. Breadblade (talk) 18:48, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Fox piece is probably OK, but the others (university pubs, social news, etc) aren't. The Cornell article, "Cornellians Gather to Watch and Discuss Cosmos", was not about Eisenkop. It only mentioned him incidentally. That is indeed what is meant by "trivial mention". Agricola44 (talk) 19:53, 4 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]

A subject need not be the main topic of the source material for a mention to be non-trivial. I also don't think that you've made a case as to why the Daily Dot, Vice Motherboard, Time Warner Cable News and other sources I've mentioned should be considered unreliable sources. Breadblade (talk) 21:59, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet the criteria for notability. Has met none of the WP:Prof requirements. TheLogician112 (talk) 10:46, 4 August 2014 (UTC) — TheLogician112 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This person does not need to meet WP:PROF requirements, only the general notability guideline, which they easy meet. Tutelary (talk) 11:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - literally dozens of news articles over the span of several years, combined with being the most well-known user of one of the largest websites in the world, as well as notable coverage of his offline work and research meets GNG easily. The previous AfD was answered with a keep and he has unarguably only become more notable as a result of the banning. It seems that a lot of people seem to have a conception of social media as being "non-notable" or "unimportant" - even when subjects meet the same guidelines that everything else are held to. Remember that the internet is still part of real life and isn't somehow inherently less valuable. Sellyme^Talk 18:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No different from any other grad student with a blog. Not that there's anything bad about such people or they can't advance anything, but that alone doesn't make for article material. 24.252.141.175 (talk) 00:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Like it or not, he is a well known biologist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.211.12.111 (talk) 01:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC) — 107.211.12.111 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Not outside of the site Reddit. We cannot have a page for him based off of direct biological work since there really isn't any, and he fails WP:PROF. Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 13:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...Which has already been stated that he is not required to meet WP:PROF standards. Tutelary (talk) 15:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He is only a "well known biologist" to the point that it warrants an article if he meets WP:PROF. Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 15:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is another argument on the basis of WP:FAME alone. Agricola44 (talk) 15:06, 6 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. Eisenkop has gained minor popularity-status on Reddit, and nowhere else. He has become recently popular outside of the particular niche, solely because of the drama generated from his ban from the site. He fails WP:BIO, and is questionable on WP:Notability. To keep his page on Wikipedia would mean to add all other Reddit users of similar small-spanned popularity, such as karmanaut, Stickleyman, Apostolate, and _vargas_. Following his ban from Reddit, Eisenkop a.k.a. Unidan is unlikely to have any already-questionable significance and notability since. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.82.116 (talk) 02:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the outcome of this AfD, those other users would only warrant articles if they gained significant media coverage from independent, reliable sources. Breadblade (talk) 17:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: His notability was already established. The article survived a previous AfD. I'm pretty sure the primary reason for this second AfD is because he was shadowbanned from the site (for vote-cheating, and he did deserve it) and now people feel angry and are lashing out at him. However, deleting an article about a notable figure does not really have anything to do with how people feel about the person himself. (And no, his shadowbanning – which may or may not affect his future notability, so "he might not be notable in the future" is not a compelling reason to delete an article – does not change his previously established notability.) --V2Blast (talk) 22:28, 8 August 2014 (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.