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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Milo Yiannopoulos

[edit]

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

Subject is not notable enough to warrant his own article. Delete. Soupy sautoy (talk) 13:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Reads like a vanity piece. Carrite (talk) 00:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Well known figure in UK technology industry (meets significant coverage). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.20.255 (talk) 08:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No coverage of subject in connection to notable events, no direct coverage of subject, pretty much all references are subject's own articles, which don't meet journalist notability. I still say delete. Soupy sautoy (talk) 09:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not quite true... obviously this guy is well known in his industry, eg Gawker Twitterati http://gawker.com/tag/miloyiannopoulos/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.20.255 (talk) 09:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - That isn't enough though, is it. Lots of people in Gawker Twitterati don't have (and shouldn't have) entries. Soupy sautoy (talk) 09:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - My God you're aggressive. This used to be a nice place to collaborate with others, now everything feels like a war. Sad really. 92.24.87.138 (talk) 19:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Um. OK, Mr anonymous personal attack, thanks for the collaboration. Everyone else, sorry if I'm coming across as aggressive, I don't mean to be. Please let me know if I am. Soupy sautoy (talk) 21:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Fine... you obviously have an axe to grind w/r/t to this particular individual... I'll leave you to it. 92.24.94.10 (talk) 14:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Not in the least, but this is where we discuss what should be deleted and what shouldn't be. I'm sure this is a good person who's great to get to know, but they haven't reached the level of notability you need to have a WP entry, in my opinion. I've tried to show why I think that. Soupy sautoy (talk) 15:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I've added a few items I think show notability to the article. ~~Keep~~ 92.24.94.10 (talk) 01:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC) !vote struck because this is clearly the same individual as keep from 92.25.20.255 (talk · contribs) — Scientizzle 18:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Scientizzle 18:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale for relist: WP:BLP article has been expanded recently — Scientizzle 18:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable and probable vanity article Dreamspy (talk) 22:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More than enough linked to already for notability and there's plenty more online. Speculation that this is a vanity piece is just that, speculation. Interesting that the person who flagged this in the first place seems to be spending a lot of time updating it... I smell an agenda 88.108.190.190 (talk) 13:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As part of the assumption of good faith I've tried to include the verifiable sources I've found. Are you the same unsigned commentor as before, by the way? If so, no need to vote again. Soupy sautoy (talk) 14:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Spoupy, no worries, I think you're behaving perfectly well. This chap fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. Plenty of sources mention his name, but no in-depth coverage. Bigger digger (talk) 17:59, 9 September 2010 (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.