Deletion of Ethan Lindenberger

Comment: Rationale is given as  but this doesn’t apply as the third criterion isn’t met, clearly the event IS significant and the individual's role WAS both substantial and well documented. One reason why this strikes me as particularly pertinent is whilst the anti-vax “movement” has in recent years spread rapidly through misinformation and social media, it is only now significant numbers of unvaccinated young people are reaching the age of majority in order for this to be important. Clearly this man is something of a landmark case, hence bringing him to congress
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: There's a stronger case for meeting  than not, given the intense biography-level coverage in major sources and some speculating https://www.ajc.com/lifestyles/health/there-excuse-anti-vaxxers-put-all-risk/t63xjfUQWf41x8pNBuFkiK/https://www.ajc.com/lifestyles/health/there-excuse-anti-vaxxers-put-all-risk/t63xjfUQWf41x8pNBuFkiK/ "something tells me we will be hearing from him again. Soon
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BASIC)

Comment: The wide coverage is two-fold. First the Reddit post about vaccination, and then the Congress testimony. I might be more sympathetic if this was a case of  or , but it is neither and I have to !vote keep. The individual is not a minor,  is satisfied, and  may or may not apply
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLPCRIME||WP:AVOIDVICTIM||WP:BASIC||WP:1E)