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. MBisanz ^talk 00:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Denninger

[edit]

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

I propose that this article fails to meet the notability requirements. All of the sources appear to be either from the subjects own blog, or from very un-reputable sources.Djobouti_phat (talk) 23:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)D[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mkdw ^talk 23:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tea Party movement. Subject does not appear to be individually notable as there is a lack of significant coverage about the individual himself in multiple reliable sources. It appears he maybe notable within the context of an event relating to the Tea Party movement, and thus would fall under WP:BLP1E. Therefore a redirect to that event should be created, and what content is verified to reliable source(s) can be summarized and merged into where the redirect is targeted within the Tea Party movement article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I replaced various unreliable or self-published sources with reliable ones. More going on here than just the Tea Party thing, which in fact seems to be the least notable and well-sourced part of his biography; he was a mildly-famous Internet entrepreneur back in the 90s and got repeated coverage for that in Chicago newspapers, and between that and his finance blogging (for which, as one source points out, he got "national attention"), he seems to squeak by WP:N quant18 (talk) 08:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG. He is covered by multiple reliable, independent sources and the sources are not WP:ROUTINE. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:28, 7 January 2013 (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.