Deletion of Joshua Ryne Goldberg

Comment: Per . There may be enough in the future for an article about the event, but we should avoid having a biography
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: So far my guess is concerned, the subject is a criminal. I want to ask keep voters, how does he meet ?. Reputable agencies are supposed to cover criminal activities, it doesn't make every criminal an encyclopedic subject
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CRIME)

Comment: rarr; '''Keep''' (see below) - Here's a hypothetical: let's say the FBI announces tomorrow "ah we made a mistake. we meant to arrest this kid's neighbor" and all coverage of Goldberg rightly ceases. If the article were then nominated for deletion, would you !vote to keep or delete it? If you say we should delete it in that case, you should say we should delete it in this case. This is the sort of reason  exists and why  requires coverage over a period of time. We don't know whether coverage of this person will continue. All we have are news reports from over a span of a few days based on an arrest and various alleged connections. If it weren't a BLP, there might be room to say "well it's obvious the subject is going to continue receiving coverage", but because of  and particularly CRIME, which tells us we should exercise extreme care when talking about people notable only in connection to a crime, we should be deleting now and recreating later if coverage continues and/or if he is found guilty. &mdash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:GNG||WP:BLP||WP:BLPCRIME)

Comment: sufficient coverage of the enormous network of strawmen and sockpuppets created by this individual to establish  even before we get to  considerations, doesn't feel like it's going to be a  that is going away any time soon
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:CRIME||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: considering that there are hundreds of reputable news stories covering this person in multiple countries the article easily meets , and considering that there are strong links to the Garland shooting in which two people died, and many more could have been killed if the attackers succeeded, posted pictures of bombs he allegedly manufactured, and is accused by the FBI of planning a heinous bombing in Kansas City, as well as the alleged planned shooting  attacks on synagogues  in Australia, there is plenty of justification for keeping this article. There are many cases of alleged or convicted terrorists who have arguably "accomplished" less, or the same such as John Walker Lindh, Derrick Shareef, Zachary Adam Chesser, Syed Fahad Hashmi and Tarik Shah none of whom were closely linked to any deaths as the subject of this article is, and all of whom have biographical articles. Also apart from Lindh, none of the others received the level of  attention that Goldberg has, in the press. Furthermore, Goldberg's  actions  as the high profile  "Australi Witness", (a link established twice, once  by Australian journalists, and separately by the FBI), indicate that he was clearly seeking publicity, to the extent of giving an interview to a newspaper-the idea that there is a special need for privacy of an "unknown" or "private" person" is rather weak when that same person sought out the attention of journalists . Also, coverage of Australi Witness has been ongoing for months, since the Garland shootings, meaning that claims that this story only began a few days ago are inaccurate, and it is likely that coverage will continue for a while yet. This is before we get to other online personas such as "Tanya Cohen" who have also been in the spotlight for months. This long-term interest and coverage of Goldberg's activities (likely to continue) makes  moot
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NOTNEWS)