Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dale J. Stephens

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. SarahStierch (talk) 17:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dale J. Stephens

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

Lack of notability: subject is not encompassed under the Wikipedia Notability Criteria WP:BIO or WP:BLP given WP:WHYN and WP:N (and some instances of WP:SPIP) Steuben (talk) 15:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP to summarize the statements below, Dale J. Stephens more than meets the criteria for notability. There are sources from Inc. Magazine, CNN, The Huffington Post, The Washington Post, ABC, and New York Magazine. Godfatherscookies (talk) 19:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend SPEEDY KEEP as per WP:BASIC, at least presently. While the sources are all dated within the past two years or so, they meet the aforementioned criteria without the "additional criteria" from WP:BASIC. However, as the sources appear to be temporal, it may be possible that the subject becomes ineligible for the WP:BASIC criteria if he disappears from the news. When, or if, that reaches a triggering threshold is for discussion. Steuben (talk) 23:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This section includes the discussion from WP:PROD

Looks like the page was automatically deleted after the tag WP:PROD had remained on the page for seven days. Checked google archives and the page has sources from CNN, The New York Times, ABC, among others, so it meets the notability for WP:BLP. -Godfatherscookies (talk) 22:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree: after discussion on the Talk page, Stephens failed to meet the basic criteria for WP:BIO or WP:BLP given WP:WHYN and WP:N (and some instances of WP:SPIP). Coverage in the media is not, in and of itself, sufficient criteria for notability. Further, specifically on his book, it must actually be published before he meets the criteria for being an author. Steuben (talk) 22:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stephens has an overwhelming quantity and quality of press to meet notability for living people. These are from the most credible, reliable sources publications possible: Inc. Magazine: http://www.inc.com/magazine/201109/peter-thiel-college-dropouts.html CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/18/opinion/bennett-thiel-education/index.html Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/youth-radio-youth-media-international/creator-of-uncollege-gets_b_871214.html?ref=tw The Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/dale-stephens-unschoolers-create-their-education/2011/08/22/gIQAp3VMjJ_story.html ABC: http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/education&id=8151836 New York Magazine: http://nymag.com/news/features/college-education-2011-5/index4.html

The page should be restored based on those sources alone. Godfatherscookies (talk) 23:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We did consider that, but the sources had no further insight into his notability other than a self-appointed expert. The number of sources (and quality) still, in this case, don't justify encyclopedic record—at least not until he's accomplished something "notable," which the discussion failed to show. Again, this seems to be rehashing what was actually in the article and not discussion of the article itself; these arguments were made and addressed in the Talk page so until something changes, it doesn't belong. I'm actually actively looking for someone who knows him (and I know people) to try to see if there's something to be revived here, but no luck thus far. Steuben (talk) 23:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW RESTORE, KEEP, AND CLOSE Subject easily meets WP:BIO and WP:BLP. Putting this article up for deletion walks a tightrope in assuming good faith, in my opinion, but nominator has already agreed to keep the article. I don't understand this AfD at all, it should never have happened. The sourcing is overwhelming. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was various debate—some old, some new—in the Talk page and quite a bit of editing about the relevance of Stephens, the legitimacy of the coverage, and quite a bit of messy edits. This AfD was instituted so people could either air their grievances coherently and timely, or put the issue to rest for now. Of course, it doesn't preclude another AfD from appearing in the future if the article stands (which, unless the critics appear in force here, now, it probably will stand). Steuben (talk) 04:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:02, 3 December 2012 (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.