Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Milo Yiannopoulos (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 speedy keep. Appears to meet GNG and has reliable sources. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter (Gimme a message) @ 13:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Milo Yiannopoulos

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of notability. Are we to include all minor journalists? Setting up a minor tech blog - one of thousands - surely doesn't class as notable. FunkyCanute (talk) 09:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment o.0 Its WP:DYK at the moment. Do we really need this ugly banner when its experiencing the most article traffic? There's no rule for this but it might be a good idea to temporarily postpone this until the DYK period is over. CyanGardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 09:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO, just trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources (ordinary positions and activities). The article was apparently deleted in the first nomination, but has now popped again. Brandmeister^talk 10:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would say it's a very borderline case but of interest, the nominator for the first AfD (which was successful) is a contributor to this second-launching version. I would be interested in what he has to say on this. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 10:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep under criteria 5 (article linked from the Main Page at the time the nomination was submitted). --Allen3 ^talk 12:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Allen3. Ryan Vesey Review me! 13:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC) Struck as the rationale no longer applies, new rationale below[reply]

Speedy keep Easily passes WP: GNG with many reliable sources. Electric Catfish 14:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Response It was the link on the homepage under DYK that drew my attention to the article. Fundamentally the article says: the subject is a journalist of no particular merit; and he has a blog, which itself lacks notability. For those reasons I urge Delete, although I take note of the speedy keep argument.
Speedy keep, small portion of trout and chips to the nominator. (Disclosure: I am the author of the article, and am aquainted with the subject.) The subject was covered in depth by The Guardian. A feature in a national mainstream publication completely satisfies the general notability guideline. WilliamH (talk) 16:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WilliamH. GNG requires significant coverage in a major source or less significant coverage in many major sources. This qualifies for the former and appears to meet the latter as well. Let's take a moment to consider the purpose of the notability guideline. Wikipedia should not be the first place that a subject is mentioned in an in depth manner. We require that another reliable source has determined the subject to be notable. That way, we don't have to. It is clear that Yiannopoulos has been determined to be notable by The Guardian. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep per WilliamH. I nominated him first time round but he's been profiled in the Guardian since then, which strikes me as a good definition of primary coverage in a notable news source.Soupy sautoy (talk) 20:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep topic meets the WP:GNG with sufficient coverage by independent sources. I have checked enough sources to verify this. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per The Guardian and other related sources. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:15, 25 July 2012 (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.