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. (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:53, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Marlow[edit]

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

Created as part of paid editing stint. Reads like a CV Carl Fredrik^talk 21:03, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:21, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:22, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: blatant self-promotion. Changed my vote: Mild keep or Merge with Breitbart News. Quis separabit? 23:43, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He is a notable figure (managing editor of Breitbart) and he has been covered and interviewed in major sources like the New York Times and Los Angeles Times. See the major profile done on him by the New York Times this week: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/16/magazine/breitbart-alt-right-steve-bannon.html?mcubz=3 Avaya1 (talk) 14:32, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being interviewed by major papers does not make one notable, notability comes from 3rd-party articles not interviews.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:49, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times did a multi-page profile, it's not just an interview. It's profiling his life as well as Raheem Kassam. He also features in third-party news stories, such as when he was duped last month. http://nypost.com/2017/08/22/duped-breitbart-editors-reveal-dirty-work-planned-against-bannons-enemies/ Avaya1 (talk) 21:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 02:53, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:34, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:34, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: last relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:45, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There looks to be sufficient sourcing to satisfy GNG/BIO. Being interviewed by major papers -- when the interview constitutes the article (in its entirety or a substantial part), i.e. it's not just a quick comment about another subject or an official statement from a spokesperson -- certainly contributes to notability. If you're selected for an interview by e.g. Forbes or the New York Times that's just about the definition of notability. There are separate things that come into play when using such a source in the article, but it contributes to notability. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:40, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, obviously notable. Whether the article was created as a promotional page is irrelevant. Just remove the promotional content and expand with RS (and he has been covered in RS, besides being editor-in-chief of one of the most notable news sources in the US right now). NoMoreHeroes (talk) 01:22, 11 September 2017 (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.