Alex Shieh: For example, the middle name listed (Kim-Hyunchul) can't be found anywhere else on the internet.  This is either entirely made-up or created by someone who knows Shieh  personally.  Same can be said about his exact birthday.  Overall, this article is entirely favorable of Shieh and fails to include any dissent of his opinions, which there have been plenty of.  Additionally, creator of the page User:Stopasianhate has been blocked for sockpuppetry, and the user who removed the redirect User:Keepabortionlegal35 hasn't created any other articles, let alone without an AfC.  Vergilreader ( talk ) 17:01, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment.  The unsourced information has been removed.  SoniaSotomayorFan ( talk ) 22:35, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Massachusetts .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:45, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete This fellow did something interesting in high school - one thing.  It got attention and he appeared on TV, and there was a short bit about him in the New Yorker in the more chatty section of the contents.  He is quoted in some articles, like in Wired, but is not the focus of those articles.  He also has been writing articles for reasonably impressive journals.  Yet I do perceive him as a one-trick pony until proven otherwise.  (I also did some editing, moving his writings outside of the references, and removed an unnecessary ref. The article is fairly ref-bombed.)  Lamona ( talk ) 02:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Agreed, likely a case of WP:TOOEARLY .  Also worth noting that the consensus on the "something interesting" he did in high school was deemed not notable enough for a Wikipedia article.  Vergilreader ( talk ) 00:37, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] However, part of my point is the article is not at all neutral.  Before being removed, lots of unsourced information seemed like it could only have come from Shieh or someone who knows him personally.  The alternative is it was completely made up.  Either way, none are fit for a Wikipedia article.  Vergilreader ( talk ) 00:38, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] *I was going to stay neutral on this but now I'm leaning towards keep .  Nom's concern with sourcing/unsourced info seems to have been addressed.  As for the 'one thing' critique, a quick scan of the sources shows at least two 'things' have gotten WP:SIGCOV in big national outlets like the New Yorker, ABC, or Fox: the political polls and the affirmative action controversy.  However, I'd be willing to change my ! vote if nom can give us a WP:DEL-REASON , because the current objections (neutrality, sourcing) can be/have been fixed though editing per WP:ATD .  Right now, I'd say that this guy technically meets WP:BASIC , albeit not by much.  SoniaSotomayorFan ( talk ) 14:23, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A few things.  First, I'd argue that the coverage doesn't meet the general notability requirement because it is not "independent of the source."  Aside from Rolling Stone and CBS Austin, which make passing mentions of Shieh's opinions, all the other sources include Shieh either on screen as a speaker or are his actual columns/op-eds.  Note the WP:GNG says specifically, "'Independent of the subject' excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it."  And, taking a closer look at WP:JOURNALIST , Shieh meets none of the following criteria:  1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors; or  2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique; or  3. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work.  In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series); or  4. The person's work (or works) has:  (a) become a significant monument,  (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition,  (c) won significant critical attention, or  (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.  Vergilreader ( talk ) 19:06, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, C LYDE TALK TO ME / STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 20:19, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Actualcpscm ( talk ) 20:53, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Known for one thing that is, itself, not worth an article.  "National attention for a column" is.. .  not saying much in 2023, particularly when the sources are two video blurbs, one of them from an unreliable source .  That adds effectively zero to the scale, leaving us with not enough.  XOR'easter ( talk ) 21:28, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The only two keep votes are accounts created within the past couple of weeks (after a separate page was created), while delete votes all are experienced editors.  Vergilreader ( talk ) 06:03, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Now one of those has been discovered to be a sock.  So, now one new account and an IP.  Vergilreader ( talk ) 02:39, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep because the subject meets Wikipedia:Notability .  Regarding WP:JOURNALIST (taken from my comment here ), Per WP:NBIO , " People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below [such as WP:JOURNALIST in our case]. " In reference to various additional occupation-specific criteria, such as WP:JOURNALIST, the policy also states, " Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. A person who does not meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability. " Thus, even if the subject does not the meet WP:JOURNALIST standards, this alone is not valid reason for deletion, if WP:NBASIC is still met.  I believe it is, as significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources exists.  Here is a source assessment table: Source assessment table: prepared by User:IAmHuitzilopochtli Source Independent?  Reliable?  Significant coverage?  Count source toward GNG ?  New Yorker Story is written by a journalist at the New Yorker based on several interviews and original reporting.  The journalist draws his own conclusions, makes independent observations, and editorializes levying judgements and criticism.  The New Yorker follows established journalistic standards and is a reliable source.  The entire magazine article is focused on Alex Shieh and his classmate and their doing polls.  ✔ Yes Fox News The subject is talking about himself.  Consensus says Fox is not reliable.  The entire article is dedicated to Alex Shieh.  ✘ No ABC News Yes.  Statements of fact are fact-checked by the anchor/author of the article and said in ABC's authoritative voice, such as where the subject is going to college and the specific details of the court ruling.  The subject's opinions face scrutiny from the other guest and the host.  Consensus says ABC is reliable.  Alex Shieh, and another student, are the focus of the coverage.  ✔ Yes Rolling Stone Yes.  Written by an independent journalist who compiles information from interviews and court rulings.  Rolling Stone is not reliable for politics, but the article is used to verify biographical details, not political facts, which falls under culture and is considered credible.  Alex Shieh, his biographical details, and his views, are analyzed and rebutted for over WP:100WORDS .  ✔ Yes WHDH Yes.  This segment features clips of the subject speaking but is narrated by an independent reporter who makes independent judgements and conclusions based on interviews and original reporting.  This news station is credible.  The subject is the main focus of this coverage.  ✔ Yes Time Yes.  Time is an independent news organization.  Time is credible.  The article is about Nikki Haley, not the subject.  ✘ No Columns These are written by the subject.  The Boston Globe is a reliable source.  The subject is not the mian focus of his own writing.  ✘ No This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.  Created using {{ source assess table }} .  IAmHuitzilopochtli ( talk ) 01:29, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I disagree with your analysis here.  To start, this doesn't even address the point User:Lamona brought up about WP:1E .  Even if the source analysis is completely accurate, this would warrant a delete by summary judgment .  The source analysis seems to suggest there may be two events (Phillips Academy Poll coverage and affirmative action coverage).  However, the consensus I pointed to previously is that his polling was not notable, and he therefore cannot be known for that event.  Wikipedia's policy is "The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified. If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate."  If the editors of a page such as Affirmative Action believe his role is large enough to be in that article, perhaps he can be added there.  But, Shieh's role in the Affirmative Action movement simply is not large enough to warrant a separate article.  He is known only for his opinions leading up to and immediately following the SFFA v. Harvard case.  But, for the sake of argument, I'll also discuss the source analysis.  The analysis seems to confuse significant coverage from count of quotations or speaking time.  Wikipedia policy is defines significant policy as something that "addresses the topic directly and in detail."  The topic of this article is Alex Shieh.  Someone discussing an affirmative action argument Shieh made does not address Shieh, it addresses an affirmative action argument.  Most of the sources included only address Shieh as an affirmative action critic and Brown University student, before allowing him to speak to the screen about his opinions (not himself).  A true source with Shieh as a subject may describe something like his college application journey or story of getting involved in Affirmative Action, for instance.  My main objections are below: ABC News: Lindsey Davis introduces Shieh for less than five seconds at the start of the video, before he debates affirmative action with another student.  Shieh is not a subject of this source here, affirmative action is.  Rolling Stone: Firstly, this is definitely a political piece, as it fundamentally addresses affirmative action, a political issue.  The article is filed under the "Politics" section on the header, so any assertion to the contrary is misleading.  So, the reliability of this source is questionable.  And, WP:100WORDS is just an essay, not consensus wikipedia policy.  But regardless, little information about Shieh's background aside from his ethnicity and education is given, with a little more attention to opinions he has.  WHDH: Again, Shieh is simply a messenger in this clip, not a subject.  He is described briefly (less than 15 seconds total) with his title, age, school, and organization, before Shieh and the anchor discuss polling results.  Subjects here are Phillips Academy and the Phillips Academy Poll, not Shieh.  To summarize, below is my source analysis table (excluding the ones you already labeled as not counting toward GNG, leaving blank the ones I agree with your reasoning and judgment): Source assessment table: prepared by User:Vergilreader Source Independent?  Reliable?  Significant coverage?  Count source toward GNG ?  New Yorker Significant parts of article the article are focused on Alex Shieh and his classmate and why they started doing polling, as well as future plans.  ✔ Yes ABC News Shieh is not a subject of this source and only receives a brief introduction.  ✘ No Rolling Stone Rolling Stone politics is not considered a reliable source, and this article is in the politics section.  Shieh's opinions are briefly featured, but he and his actions are not the subject, even though the article may discuss opinions that he has.  ✘ No WHDH Shieh is shown here because he is discussing a non-notable organization's polling results.  He only receives a brief introduction and is not a subject.  ✘ No This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.  Created using {{ source assess table }} .  Vergilreader ( talk ) 05:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  As the user who originally created a separate article on this topic, I think I have a unique perspective on this matter.  I'd originally interpreted Wikipedia guidelines like User:IAmHuitzilopochtli , but after reading User:Vergilreader 's analysis, am inclined to agree a separate article is not needed.  If an article creator has any special permissions in an Afd, please expedite the delete process.  Jfkadmirer ( talk ) 23:08, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just some context about Jfkadmirer's claims above looking through their edit history.  Jfkadmirer previously engaged in an edit war to instate a bizarre one-sentencer (

Discussion outcome: delete