Adam Sandler (costume wearer): I doubt that anyone would even come to here if it was for him sharing the name of a very famous actor.  JDDJS ( talk to me • see what I've done ) 07:35, 6 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep - there do appear to be fairly extensive sources discussing this person which seem to go beyond routine news.  JMWt ( talk ) 07:57, 6 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'd argue for delete .  Although the sources are good newspapers with international weight, I feel they might be writing in local-newspaper mode about this, writing about an antisocial nuisance in their own city.  I.e. it's local news covered by a newspaper that usually covers wider stuff.  Basically the guy is an unpleasant minor criminal just like many, many other unpleasant minor criminals, and I'm not sure we owe him the advertising space for his unpleasant views.  There is no real encyclopaedic reason why anyone would be interested in him.  Elemimele ( talk ) 11:04, 6 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Sexuality and gender , California , New York ,  and Oregon .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 12:01, 6 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above.  JM ( talk ) 21:56, 6 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:NBIO and WP:GNG .  After checking to see if this might be some sort of hoax, I found that it was actually more than suitable as a general interest kind of article, quite similar to the one about Milverine , who himself is more of a local attraction only.  And of course there is Category:American street performers , wherein we find such things as The Great Morgani .  Stony Brook babble 10:13, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I did a little work on the article, but this subject is without a doubt notable and meets WP:GNG.  Mutiple lengthy articles in top level American newspapers over a long period of time.  The nomination can only be seen to be squeamish about the content, but these humans about which much of Wikipedia's content is dedicated, they never cease to surprise in the things they do. -- Milowent • has spoken 13:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep As above.  Reliable sourcing over a long period of time.  Just because it's unpleasant doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed if there's the sources to support it.  PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 23:11, 8 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , I agree with User:Elemimele that the coverage is basically local news in press that is known for it's non-local coverage.  There is no hint of notability in any of this subject's activities or achievements.  BD2412 T 00:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: There is a lean towards keep at the moment, but the delete votes have valid arguments and this discussion could benefit from a bit of extra time.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk ) 13:09, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : sadly, coverage about this criminal is both significant and lasting, from several reliable sources, more than meeting our standard for notability.  "Local news"?  We have both the L.A. Times and the N.Y. Times covering this.  Owen× ☎ 14:56, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The NY Times covered it and it's a long story.  The SF newspapers are also fine, rest are trivial but in RS.  We have enough for notability.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 18:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above.  Crunchydillpickle🥒 ( talk ) 20:46, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: keep