Deletion of David Hogg

Comment: let's examine what is being put on the shelf here. Mainly,  and . If we take a look at , it states that a topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article when certain conditions apply. This condition includes the following: {{tq|"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content}} – based on the sources that Tomsulcer provide, the sources in the article and outside sources, there are several articles that discuss this subject in depth. He does meet this criteria for a stand alone article. All sources that are discussing him and his work in depth are reliable. The second thing we must examine is . His notability ''initially'' came from his status as a survivor of the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, but now includes his work for gun control advocacy ''after'' the shooting took place. Now we beg the question, is the ''shooting'' and its ''aftermath'' a ''different'' event from the coverage and discussion regarding 2018 ''gun control advocacy'' – though these events are related, are they considered ''two'' different events? Well, let's look at BLP1E. It states {{tq|Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met}} – the first condition is {{tq|If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event}}. Does David Hogg, in which articles discuss him, only feature him on the context of a single event? It seems, based on several factors, that the 2018 gun control advocacy and the shooting at MSD are ''separate'' events. Reliable sources discuss his role in both of these events, focusing on the latter and his involvement in gun control advocacy. The second criteria is {{tq|If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual}}. Based on reliable sources, it is ''unlikely'' that David Hogg will become a low-profile individual based on his work in the 2018 gun advocacy movement following the MSDHS shooting. Based on factoring of these criteria, I support a weak keep. We can ''always'' examine notability at a later time. Wikipedia is not in a rush to delete, create or re-create articles if needed
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:BLP1E||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: Without the notability of all of the articles and media attention, I would certainly argue this would be part of  , but due to the media attention and vast number of references, I think the article is sufficiently notable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: There's a degree of  in arguing that coverage will go on into the future but I'm more inclined to believe that it well continue based on the CNN interview he did with Dan Rather. We can always revisit if that doesn't happen
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)