Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas M. Loeb (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 keep. Overall consensus herein is for article retention. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:06, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas_M._Loeb

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

Previous AfD debate was non-consensual regarding inclusion following notability criteria, individual appears to be using wikipedia for self-propagandizing purposes, reopening with hope of reaching definitive conclusion Bdbdd (talk) 01:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Bdbdd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 May 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - Most definitively meets WP:GNG - Cwobeel (talk) 02:28, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

confused - What exactly is the justification for speedy keep? The page is an orphan, barring a self-produced film, and the edit history suggests reasonable doubt w/r/t CoI Bdbdd (talk) 02:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because (a) it meets GNG, and (b) it seems that this AFD was your first edit. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically which guideline are you using as a line of argument? It seems irrelevant what my first edit is within wikipedia - WP:DNB? My rationale is, I think, clear. The article is non-notable. What is yours? Bdbdd (talk) 04:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Previous AFD was "no consensus to delete", and the subject easily meets WP:GNG. Your sudden appearance to nom this article for AFD is highly unusual. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability is not inherited. Almost the entire article is about who he is related to, married to, or working with. Read the article and try and find info about him. There's not much, and none of it is notable.--Dmol (talk) 04:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, at least temporarily. He is currently the subject of significant media coverage in response to his op-ed in the New York Times. Moonboy54 (talk) 04:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Comment - For some unknown reason the nominators first edit was to AFD this article, On the basis of the last AFD as well as the delete !vote here I think it's unfair for me to close as Speedy Keep, Anyway IMHO the article looks fine & NOTINHERITED doesn't apply but meh Keep. –Davey2010^Talk 13:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - His political involvement and his involvement in the two films are enough in my mind to meet notability requirements.XavierGreen (talk) 18:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd also note, it seems strange to me that the very first edit the nominator made as a wikipedia user was an AFD, to me it seems like he created the account solely for the purpose of AFDing this page.XavierGreen (talk) 18:21, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no real notability other than irrelevant WP:INHERITED.--Rpclod (talk) 05:43, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the coverage he gets is more down to his ability to get famous fiancés, rather than anything he's actually doing himself. While the NYT thing is pretty bizarre, nobody would care if they weren't also Sofía Vergara's embryos. WP:NOTINHERITED very much applies here. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per WP:INHERITED. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. Patapsco913 (talk) 17:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to improvements and for the solid notability generated from continuous political activity and the "Embryo controversy". He's basically doing a very good job of keeping his name in the news. Pax 04:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:GNG. There are a lot of articles about him, where he is the subject like see here. Elgatodegato (talk) 01:06, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this person clearly seems to meet WP:GNG, the embryo controversy on it's own is probably almost enough coverage, but combined with other coverage, it's clearly enough. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep I would not have wasted my time writing an article on the lackluster career of this unaccomplished scion of privilege. I am voting keep because his failure to accomplish anything has been so thoroughly documented by the press.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Loads of sources, here is one, a profile in the New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/20/fashion/Nicholas-Loeb-Sofia-Vergara-Fiance-Forget-All-the-Rest-Hes-Mr-Condiment-.html, passes wp:GNG GuzzyG (talk) 03:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per E.M.Gregory, and as a test case for Estate tax in the United States. See Paris Hilton and Donald Trump, Jr.. See also condom. Bearian (talk) 16:24, 15 May 2015 (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.