Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Carlson


 * 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.‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ ~Anachronist (talk) 17:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Nicholas Carlson

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Proposing at AfD per suggestion from. Subject is not notable, per WP:BIO. Could not find RS that cover the subject in a substantive context that are not created by the company he works for or an interview subject has given. Article was initially created by a user with a WP:PAID COI. The recent "ripping" event, while it earned coverage, does not make the subject any more notable. Longhornsg (talk) 17:42, 20 June 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:25, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople,  and United States of America. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak keep The New York Times piece is about him and an article he penned seems ok, this is Gizmodo about how he's moved the newsroom to experiment with ChatGPT. Even this is about him  Not a slam dunk, but they are coverage of the individual's journalistic career. Oaktree b (talk) 19:26, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Likely also has notability as an author, the NYT is basically a book review/discussion, and this in a Canadian magazine and in the Washington Post . Both reviews are by different individuals, even though the article titles are very similar. Oaktree b (talk) 19:28, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:18, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. We have several sources here that are actually about Insider and not Carlson. We also have some book reviews. Neither builds the case for notability here because notability is not inherited. What's left are interviews or stuff publisher by Insider, which aren't independent. - MrOllie (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep, the reviews in The New York Times and the Washington Post likely means Carlson passes WP:NAUTHOR Criteria 3, in addition his anti-union activities received coverage in The Wrap here, covering any BLP1E concerns. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per Devonian Wombat. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 15:40, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep meets our guidelines for inclusion. Lightburst (talk) 11:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Based on the sources in the article, I think GNG is met.  Arbitrarily0   ( talk ) 14:21, 13 July 2023 (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.