Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Owens (3rd 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, default to delete. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 23:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Christian Owens
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Yet another fishy autobiography of a barely notable person. Article creator Chrowe3 appears to be in a conflict-of-interest. bender235 (talk) 17:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt please. Not notable, apparent autobiography, deleted twice before for similar reasons.  Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 *  Keep Weak keep. The Daily Mail and Venture Beat articles easily satisfy the requirement in WP:GNG for multiple reliable independent secondary sources. Note also that neither of these sources had been published by the time of the previous AfDs.  Finally, WP:COI is a content issue, not a reason to delete, especially as most editors are anonymous.  Every claim in an article has to be backed up by published sources, no matter who wants it in there for what reason, or it's subject to removal anyway.  Msnicki (talk) 20:35, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep I think there's enough coverage to warrant inclusion per guidelines. Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * At best Weak keep -- An IT prodigy, but will he last? Peterkingiron (talk) 13:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You make a compelling point that this may be a story of only passing or local interest. Msnicki (talk) 17:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. I've had this article watchlisted for about two years and I've had to revert a series of BLP violations (negative material from self-published sources) from it during that that time. Fortunately this seem to have died down recently but there's no way of knowing whether it's stopped for good. The assertion of notability is largely based on one Daily Mail article, a source whose reliability has been questioned at WP:RSN many times, and one fairly brief article in a technology blog. At best it's borderline and I can't see the benefit in keeping a problematic low-notability BLP. January  ( talk ) 19:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Weak keep It'll be hard to make this much more than a start-class article, but there is repeated mention in RS. -- Jprg1966  (talk)  21:22, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per Barney the barney barney - Non notable autobiography. - Davey 2010 T  23:54, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 05:35, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. There's also a Gizmodo article. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Commment (cos I voted above) - a crucial point here is the availability of future sources. Basically, what happens if he achieves anything else in his life - will there be sources reporting that?  More specifically, and hopefully looking at the long term, what will happen when he dies?  Will there be any coverage?  A the moment, he' has his 15 minutes of fame and there might not be any more.  Sourcing for this isn't the worst I've seen, but there's a lot of tech coverage, much of it extremely trivial, a flash in the pan, and not entirely reliable.  Finally, we really have a duty to protect people, especially minors, from them wanting a biography, because if you're not very notable, having a Wikipedia article isn't a great idea. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:21, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This is something of a WP:BLP1E. The three sources discussed here are all dated from between June and August 2010 when he was 15/16 and he clearly got this coverage because of his age, his activities when he is older are far less likely to attract coverage without that novelty. January  ( talk ) 18:21, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:BLP1E. Although the subject is continuing with momentum from the debut business, he's apparently not been substantially reported on in connection with this continuing work. Therefore, there's not enough in the way of reliable, independent sources on which to found the article. I did locate a couple of other articles from 2010, but they also concern themselves with the subject's activites at that time (primarily related to his relatively young age). -- Trevj (talk) 12:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as per WP:BLP1E and comments by Trevj and January. Samwalton9 (talk) 18:11, 25 November 2013 (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.