Deletion of Julien Blanc

Comment: The article could use the attention of an editor experienced in writing neutral biographies on controversial figures, but I don't see how the notability of this person can be challenged.  There's a whole stack of citations from reliable sources.  Potential issues related to  and  can be solved through the normal editing process
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:RECENTISM)

Comment: My, but there are a lot of s here. Subject is clearly notable for his controversial views on the subject of attraction (putting it generously), and this notability is demonstrated by having been barred entry by a country and the target of protests in several others. Issues about neutrality can be solved with editing, but we don't delete articles just because they're about bad people
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Single-purpose account (WP:SPA)

Comment: Substantial'' coverage across at least three continents.  http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=5667 Whatever problems our lords and masters at Wikipediocracy have with BLPs of the hopefully inconsequential, but ''per edict'' otable, they're going to have to be fixed by some BLP-regulating mechanism other than AfD. By policy, this odious guy is considered notable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: The article is heavily biased and reads as though it is a news article written by extremist feminists, as it draws information from news sources, which are deemed to be inaccurate by many. I would vote for the article to be kept if it didn't state all the media bulls*** as fact. They should be stated as controversy. Heavy use of the phrase 'according to' would be appropriate. Otherwise this article has no place in wikipedia. Here are some resources from the other side for people who want to keep the article and make it neutral. http://g00.se/truth-behind-julien-blanc/ , http://www.rsdnation.com/node/551104 , http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1411/17/nday.04.html Edit: It would be more suitable to create an article for this event, as opposed to a biolgraphy. This article does not meet the guidelines  in my opinion. —&nbsp;Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned comment added by
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: controversial figure who has received a lot of press coverage in reliable sources, and passes  and . As mentioned above few people get banned from a country for non-criminal reasons
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: Putative bias is a reason to improve the article, not a rationale for deleting it. The subject clearly meets the |GNG
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: as the person has received coverage in multiple countries at different times as a result of outrage at his seminars.  Passes  and not a  case.  This keep vote should not be interpreted as approval or endorsement of Blanc or his methods, which I abhor
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: This two-day old article should be improved rather than deleted. Subject passes ,  and . See  and #Achieving neutrality on how to improve the article's neutrality; bias can be addressed by rewriting passages. Wikipedia policy does not object to basing articles on recent news/events. --Special:Contributions/82.136.210.153|82.136.210.153
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BASIC||WP:GNG||WP:ONEEVENT||WP:PRESERVE||WP:NPOV)

Comment: meets  per the ref list
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: I've done the vast majority of additional editing on the article for the past two days, and have found a couple of  sources that are less condemnatory of Blanc. I'm continuing to search for such sources in the interest of . Anyone who can help with that please get onto the article's talk page. I urge people to remember this is an encyclopedia, and to leave their opinions about "odiousness" or "admirability" at the coat check stand
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:VERIFY||WP:NPOV)

Comment: I think any issues of |one-eventism are over-ridden by the sheer weight and depth of coverage. Added to that is the involvement of political figures in the UK and Australia (and not just low-ranking figures either, Cabinet ministers), which puts him further over the notability threshold
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)