Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Ross Sorkin


 * 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. Obvious erroneous nomination, under speedy keep criteria #3 (non-admin closure) Mrfrobinson (talk) 02:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Andrew Ross Sorkin

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails GNG. Vosas23 (talk) 11:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  sst  ✈  13:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions.  sst  ✈  13:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  sst  ✈  13:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep Absurd nomination with questionable motivation. Sorkin is very possibly the best known financial reporter in the United States. A quick web search, or look at the page, shows the multitude of coverage. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:43, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as I'm not seeing anything to actually confirm the nominator's base, certainly several listed sources and also information. SwisterTwister   talk  21:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. The sources cited in the article substantiate notability (see, e.g., this and this, both of which are cited in the Wikipedia article). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep and request close. According to the contrib history, this is the nominator's first day of editing on Wikipedia, and judging by the above Keep arguments and the high notability of the subject, this nomination appears to be disruptive and vandalism and I would assume this user is here to do anything but contribute positively to the encyclopedia. If there is a professional who saids the subject is non-notable because sources like the Telegraph and Rolling Stone are unreliable, non-independent newspapers and magazines, which I highly doubt it, I will reconsider my argument. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī 22:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.