Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unidan (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. North America1000 07:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Relevance of subject was temporary and based around social media notability. Past discussions on deletion focused on relevance to the website which has evolved well past this one particular user. Other past discussion focused around the subject's coming books and speaking engagements which never came to fruition. The subject themselves seems to have kept a low profile in the past years proving that notability was temporary. There is nothing in this article worthy of preservation. Sir Richard Head (talk) 14:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

— Sir Richard Head (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 (talk) 15:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak keep. I think GNG is met.  The Daily Dot, Fox News, and Vice articles look like significant coverage.  It's over enough time that I don't think it's WP:BLP1E.  (The best delete argument OTOH, seems to be that it is verging on BLP1E and that the coverage is verging on marginal, with the combination kicking him below the threshold of notability.)  The article should be significantly cut down if kept.  Comment that he appears to have left Binghamton, and I didn't find record of a degree. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete this person is a doctoral candidate. You have to have some really comelling reason to show a doctoral candidate as notable and that is lacking here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Was a doctoral candidate, in 2014 when the article was written. (Being a past doctoral candidate is not any more of a claim of notability than being a present one, of course.) —David Eppstein (talk) 00:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Once notable, always notable. WP:NOTTEMPORARY. There is no such thing as "temporary notability". Taking such an idea to its logical extension, we would be deleting articles on Ramses II or Sweyn Forkbeard. They haven't been up to much lately, have they? Or when was the last time you heard about the Balloon Boy hoax? Yet we keep the article because it was once notable and, so, is always notable. Currently, on average over 100 people view the Unidan article every day, so clearly it continues to be useful to a number of people. Frankly, the fact that the only activity the account that proposed this deletion has had is nominating the page for deletion, yet it clearly has a knowledge of past discussions, leads me to believe that this may be Ben Eisenkop himself attempting to have this page deleted because of the unflattering information that it contains about his conduct. Creating alternate accounts for shady purposes is the entire point of his scandal, after all. AlphabeticThing9 (talk) 03:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm just a guy that stumbled on the article and asked myself "Why does this article exist?" and used the opportunity to learn more about wikipedia, but thanks for the humorous thought. Sir Richard Head (talk) 15:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:38, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NOTTEMPORARY  Java Hurricane  15:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, while there could be a WP:BLP1E problem here, this guy received coverage for multiple events over a period of over a year, so he clearly sails by that. He passes WP:GNG, since quite a few reliable secondary sources have given him significant coverage. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:28, 3 June 2020 (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.