Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Shieh

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was delete‎. This was a complicated discussion in which it seemed like half of the accounts participating were IP editors so duplicate votes can not be completely ignored as a possibility. But through it all, I see only agreement on one reliable source with the other references' independence and SIGCOV being questioned. I was also influenced by the fact that this individual's primary notability comes from his polling organization whose article was deleted due to a perceived lack of notability.

I do want to mention that the nominator, User:Vergilreader did his case no favors by bludgeoning this entire, long AFD discussion. You could have easily been blocked from participating in this discussion, please do not respond to every comment in any future AFDs you start.

I do understand that this closure decision might go to Deletion review for evaluation and I can only wish the editors participating there good luck in sorting this out. I also have no objection to this article being restored to Draft space for further improvement but if it is just moved back to main space, you can expect a speedy CSD G4 deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:52, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Alex Shieh

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Alex Shieh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is poorly sourced and may be created by Alex Shieh, or someone who knows him. 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)

Comment. The unsourced information has been removed. SoniaSotomayorFan (talk) 22:35, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)

  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)

  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)

*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)

• 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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 20:19, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

  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 (see here) about how Shieh competed in varsity pole vault in high school, which is not at all what he is known for and read like vandalism/prank. Then Jfkadmirer improperly attempted to draftify a redirect (see here). That "separate article" version edits is not at all what this current version here is. IAmHuitzilopochtli (talk) 21:50, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  That's not the full picture. The first time I removed the redirect, I'd intended to use that text as a placeholder for a draft. It was then (rightfully) redirected back since I'd accidentally done the whole article. Of course, when I moved it to draftspace again I did it wrong, but at the time I believed a separate article was needed (though I no longer believe this). Jfkadmirer (talk) 02:23, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

• Keep. I mostly agree with the first source assessment table, with a minor disagreement where I see the merits of the nominator's point (see my table below). However, I also find the nominator's reading of Wikipedia policy a bit selective and misleading at times.

• About the one event policy, WP:BLP1E says We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:

1. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.

2. If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.

3. If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant, and his role was both substantial and well documented.

All three conditions must be met for exclusion under WP:BLP1E. I think 1 and 2 are not:

Condition 1: Sources we both deem reliable have covered the subject in two contexts, affirmative action and polls. His specific poll group being found non-notable over a year ago is of no relevance here.

Condition 2: WP:LPI defines a low profile individual as not seeking out media attention, and a high-profile person as someone who might have many scheduled media appearances with notable media. Shieh is not low-profile because he voluntarily engages in media appearances on television and through his columns on topics besides polls and affirmative action.

• Regarding source analysis, it seems like there is mostly consensus, but I believe the nominator's understanding of WP:SIGCOV is not correct. The policy says Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. So, whether or not Alex Shieh, or polling results, or affirmative action is the main topic is a pedantic and meaningless distinction. So is a distinction regarding whether coverage is about Sheih or Sheih's opinions--aren't his opinions an aspect of the subject as a journalist that should be included in the wiki article? What makes the coverage significant is the fact that aspects of Alex Shieh are addressed directly and in detail which provides sourcing for all sorts of claims in the wiki article such as his approximate age, education, and career details without the need for original research on our part. Given the emphasis placed on Shieh, it seems a stretch to call such coverage a trivial mention, rather than sigcov. Here is a modified version of the nominator's source assessment table that outlines areas of consensus, as well as my objections.

Source assessment table: prepared by User:172.59.190.251
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
New Yorker	consensus view	consensus view	consensus view	✔ Yes
ABC News	consensus view	consensus view	Shieh and his work are addressed directly and in detail, so that we can source claims made in the wiki article without doing original research ourselves. And, there is more than just the Lindsay Davis clip. There is also a clip with David Muir, and an online news article (concurring with IAmHuizilopochtli, disagreeing with Vergilreader)	✔ Yes
Rolling Stone	consensus view	? Is Rolling Stone reliable for sourcing biographical facts that happen to be included in the politics section of the magazine? (Unsure on stance)	Shieh and his work (and his opinions which are relevant to this page) are addressed directly and in detail, so that we can source claims made in the wiki article without doing original research ourselves (concurring with IAmHuizilopochtli, disagreeing with Vergilreader)	? Unknown
WHDH	consensus view	consensus view	Shieh and his work are addressed directly and in detail, so that we can source claims made in the wiki article without doing original research ourselves. The clip addresses actions Shieh has undertaken (getting grant funding and building an automatic dialing system for instance) (concurring with IAmHuizilopochtli, disagreeing with Vergilreader)	✔ Yes
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}}.

In summary, I think this should be kept as the subject does not meet the WP:BLP1E criteria for exclusion, and multiple sources determined to be reliable and independent per consensus from the nominator themself do indeed include WP:SIGCOV (not to mention the New Yorker, which the nominator agrees meets the GNG requirements in all three categories). 172.59.190.251 (talk) 20:31, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

This is a brazen misinterpretation of WP:1E, but I won’t blame you since you’re an IP (and presumably inexperienced at Wikipedia). This is certainly in the context of a certain event. A court ruling and its media coverage is considered an event. How can an organization (The Phillips Academy Poll) be an event? And, how can someone be known for an “event” that isn’t notable? Additionally, to the low-profile individual part, the page you describe says a high-profile individual “ Has given one or more scheduled interviews to a notable publication, website, podcast, or television or radio program, as a "media personality" (a.k.a. "public face" or "big name"), a self-described "expert", or some other ostensibly (or would-be) notable commentator.” Shieh is not any of these and therefore isn’t high-profile. So, WP:1E certainly applies.

Again, I find issue with your interpretation of significance, which is understandable since you’re an inexperienced IP. You highlight “ directly and in detail” yet none of your alterations to my assessment actually show Shieh’s coverage being direct and in detail.

• ABC: Shieh’s opinions are certainly explained in detail by himself, but again, that is by himself, not someone independent. The actual independent coverage from the anchor simply makes a passing mention to a few of his credentials like his college. Also, per WP:SIGCOV, multiple publications from the same org don’t count extra.
• Rolling Stone: Your independence and sigcov columns contradict. Sure, perhaps biographical details are accurate, but then you’re claiming the description of the author’s work is also even though it’s in the politics section? And, again, Shieh is barely mentioned as I’ve discussed in my previous comment on this issue.
• WHDH: The “work” you mentioned is only discussed for fifteen seconds at most. Definitely just a trivial mention, the majority of the clip is about the org itself, not Shieh. And, notice what you listed is stuff that the org did.

Overall, I completely stand by my previous comment supporting WP:1E and the source assessment. Vergilreader (talk) 02:22, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Why did the source assessment table header originally say User:IAmHuitzilopochtli? And why did User:IAmHuitzilopochtli hide it so quickly? Vergilreader (talk) 02:27, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Comment Crossed out confirmed sock/duplicate comments. Might be a good idea to relist with cleaner debate.66.171.166.43 (talk) 23:58, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Worth noting all socks and duplicate comments were in favor of keep. 66.171.166.43 (talk) 00:25, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Wow. Perhaps this is COI like my original nomination reason? Almost as if the first edit made by User:SoniaSotomayorFan was to cover up a mistake by User:Keepabortionlegal35. Just speculation to be taken with a grain of salt. Vergilreader (talk) 02:25, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

• The subject is passingly notable for running an unusual polling service and for inserting himself into the debate on the SCOTUS' decision on affirmative action. Individually they might not be enough but having both for the same subject must admittedly be considered in combination. Additionally, the subject has chosen a field (journalism) which is likely to increase their publicity and exposure in the future but also has already done so to some degree (e.g. the interviews and published articles which are with a generally reliable source). So while parts of the material might be promotional, they should not be discounted either. However, a COI warning should be applied if the article is kept to prevent future abuse. - Indefensible (talk) 03:24, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: With the socking and the competing source analysis tables, I'm going for a Final relist and hope some uninvolved editors can take a second look at this article and we can reach a consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:57, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

• Delete Brifly talks about him here [1], but I don't think he's more notable than the other student interviewed in the story. Sourcing appears primary in the article, not seeing GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 16:24, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  "Kid gets interviewed about a policy change and writes articles on same subject" isn't notable, yet. Too early, but if he keeps writing as he has, might very well be notable in the future. Oaktree b (talk) 16:27, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  That neglects the polling group he started in high school, which is the subject considered more notable by some above. He got coverage for 2 items primarily, not just the affirmative action case. - Indefensible (talk) 19:02, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, he certainly got coverage, but the problem is more so the following:

  1. The polling group is not notable.
  2. Aside from New Yorker, all other coverage involving the poll of Shieh only has passing mentions of Shieh—he is never the subject of articles himself. And of course, one cannot inherit notability from org.

  These points suggest Shieh can’t be known for the org. Simple coverage itself isn’t enough. And, he still fails WP:JOURNALIST. Vergilreader (talk) 19:15, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  The New Yorker ref can be used to argue that what he did regarding the polling service was notable in my opinion, even if the group itself was not deemed to be notable enough to have an article. - Indefensible (talk) 19:19, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  I’m not too sure what I think about a single article being sufficient to avoid WP:1E, let’s see what others think. Thanks for the perspective! By the way, what do you think about the source assessments for GNG? Vergilreader (talk) 19:26, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  Both you and IAmHuitzilopochtli (and I see now there is an IP editor as well) agree the New Yorker ref supports GNG, so ignoring it as Oaktree b did is a mistake in my opinion and there should be no question on at least partial notability for the subject. The question becomes more of the other references as you asked, mainly concerning the SCOTUS' affirmative action case. I am leaning towards keep but have not fully decided yet. - Indefensible (talk) 19:45, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  I guess it depends on how much “partial notability” is enough to override WP:1E. You seem to think this is enough, while I, Lamona, and XOR'easter think otherwise, but let’s wait for a few more opinions. We can agree to disagree here.

  What other references are you looking at? The only other SCOTUS related source in contention is ABC News if you look at the IP’s table. I personally don’t think ABC meets sigcov, but even if it did, would two sources (New Yorker and ABC) even be enough for an article per GNG and WP:JOURNALIST? Vergilreader (talk) 20:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with you where you asked "How can an organization (The Phillips Academy Poll) be an event?" The subject does not seem like a good fit under WP:1E because their notability is not based on such an event. It seems like a borderline case overall, honestly the best outcome in my opinion would be close as no consensus. - Indefensible (talk) 22:09, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Delete The main claim of notoriety seems to be regarding the High School "polling firm" created - but this is shaky to define (what exactly constitutes a "polling firm"? I have to imagine that a poll conducted by students has been featured on at least local news before, so the question then centers around some abstract margin for what makes a "polling firm" notable). Regardless, while impressive, this does not seem significantly more notable than many other long-term projects done by Ivy League prospect type students around the world. His work as a journalist also does not seem to have yet conferred enough notability to justify an biographical page.

A MINOTAUR (talk) 22:19, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

DeleteCompletely agree. This is too soon, a page can always be created later if he becomes more notable. 2607:FB91:D74:12E4:5046:DA26:BD6E:C1BE (talk) 17:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Keep Upon further reconsideration, I now understand the poll is more impressive than the typical high-school project.A MlNOTAUR (talk) 18:04, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

In case it is not clear, I (actually @A MlNOTAUR) did not change my opinion "upon further reconsideration", and it's a bit strange and worrying to have someone impersonate me just to try to cancel out my rather banal opinion to delete. I maintain that this page warrants deletion and that the project, while nice, is indeed not anything significantly notable to the point of having a biographical page. I'd recommend that the person impersonating me, who I strongly suspect has some degree of conflict of interest, understand that this type of behavior often only ends up being detrimental to their goals. A MINOTAUR (talk) 23:36, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

This is clearly an account impersonating User:A MINOTAUR. Crossing out edit. Vergilreader (talk)

• Keep after further consideration per above, but needs COI warning. Phillips Academy Poll was deleted in July 2022, but if you look at Phillips Academy#The Phillips Academy Poll there were new reliable sources added with the election later that year, so its notability has increased since the deletion. Therefore arguments should no longer be based on its previous lack of notability in my opinion. The New Yorker, WHDH, and NHPR refs in particular suggest notability. This case seems borderline overall but other refs such as from ABC should push towards inclusion; note the subject of the ABC ref is not the SCOTUS decision but rather how the outcome will affect students--including the subject of this article. We should expand coverage of the encyclopedia given the opportunity in such cases. - Indefensible (talk) 22:43, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  I originally thought this too, which is why I created a separate page for the subject originally. I agree that the polling org perhaps has increased notability now, but remember that per WP:INHERITORG, this doesn't make Shieh notable. I don't see enough refs right now to make the individual notable. Jfkadmirer (talk) 02:28, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  A lot of the sources which support the polling group also support him though. Like a Venn diagram they would be 2 circles with significant overlap. There is some more recent coverage on the polling group now that he is not longer there, but also there are some more refs for him from the affirmative action issue. - Indefensible (talk) 02:34, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  What sources exactly? NHPR for example doesn't even mention Shieh's name. Most refs I find of the org actually only mention it in the context of the polling data. Jfkadmirer (talk) 03:33, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  New Yorker is the main ref, there seems to be no controversy over counting that. WHDH is good in my opinion. NHPR is good for the polling group, and the subject indirectly. Also counting at least partially some of the more controversial refs like ABC, Rolling Stone, Fox, and the Boston Globe articles even if primary; they are secondary but enough in addition. - Indefensible (talk) 03:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  A collection of weak sources that don't each meet GNG is generally not a good argument for the subject being notable, and primary sources especially should not be considered towards notability. Like User:Jfkadmirer notes, I don't think NHPR counts at all since Shieh's name isn't in the article. New Yorker being the "main ref" isn't enough alone, Wikipedia is not a place to recite a single source with a bunch of minor facts from other sources added on. None of these articles suggests anything toward meeting WP:JOURNALIST either. Vergilreader (talk) 05:22, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  I have never felt that WP:JOURNALIST was particularly applicable in this case. As I mentioned earlier, I do not think WP:1E particularly applies either. Mainly looking at the New Yorker which seems uncontroversial and counts as you and others reviewed, in addition to WHDH and the collection of additional sources. In any case, may reply to directed questions but not looking to argue further and will move on to other subjects. - Indefensible (talk) 05:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

• Keep. As the editor that created this version of the article, I disagree with the deletion reasons above. There is clearly more than 1E, polling (1) and AA (2), (a previously deleted article on his polling does not negate it from being an event which received sigcov). The New Yorker in particular, but also WHDH, cover him in-depth with regard to that. And I agree with the 3rd table, as I have reviewed the sources in question and do find the coverage significant.

Keepabortionlegal35 (talk) 03:51, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Not entirely an "uninvolved editor" like User:Liz was hoping for since this is an account that made one of the (three) attempts to remove the redirect from this page. This vote is just the assumed position of someone who created a separate article (User:Jfkadmirer's delete vote is noteworthy for this reason) and provides no new arguments. Vergilreader (talk) 05:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Keep Rolling Stone probably fails independence. Indefensible is wrong to hint that "partially counting" is acceptable for sources like NHPR. But, WHDH (along with the New Yorker) is enough to push this into keep, since the source does have a significant portion describing what the subject does and a bit of biographical information as well. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 23:39, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Glad we agree on Rolling Stone. But no, WHDH describes what the polling organization does, not directly what the subject does (other than his title and age). It is a passing mention of Alex Shieh, who himself is also talking about the poll, not himself. The coverage in WHDH is not even close to the in-depth description of Shieh as an individual and his role within the org that the New Yorker provides, which we both believe meets the point of SIGCOV. Vergilreader (talk) 04:28, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Comment Will not vote due to COI. I attended Phillips Academy with Alex, the subject of this article. After his first op-ed in Newsweek, he immediately made clear to his classmates that he was going to create himself a Wikipedia page. He confirmed that he had an account and had also been blocked previously, cussing at the platform when this happened. Part of his motivation was to boost his college application, as Harvard was well-known to be his top choice at the time. Beyond that, he believed it was a resume builder. I cannot confirm for certain what accounts he held, but I’d imagine it is no coincidence there are so many sock puppet allegations on this page.

On the contrary, Alex is an extremely controversial (infamous may be a better word) figure at school, so I would not be surprised if the delete votes on this page are his classmates either.

Overall, beware of your votes and who is voting. There is likely lots of sock or meat puppetry here. Regardless, if the page is kept, I support the COI notice on the article others have asked for. 2607:FB91:D74:12E4:8D59:81BF:6D2B:4D0 (talk) 00:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Youthful mistakes potentially, if true. Very possible though in my opinion. Alex, if you read this, you should improve your standards. It does not reflect well. - Indefensible (talk) 01:36, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm well over 40 yrs old at this point and not in high school. Oaktree b (talk) 17:01, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

• Delete. I mostly agree with vergilreader's source assessment and interpretation of sigcov. If users agree that the subject's articles in the Boston Globe aren't independent, I see no difference if the subject happens to be talking to a TV audience on ABC News or WHDH. The introductions the anchor gives is analogous to the short bios given at the top and bottom of the column. I'm also bringing up exclusion. The first point of advertising applies here, although the subject is a person and not an organization. There's already been allegations of the subject potentially causing a COI here, and nom's points about the article having personal details (middle name and exact birthday) not found elsewhere are particularly concerning. The criteria of barely notable individuals is also important, as the comment above this states as well. Lots of potential for defamation, as the subject is barely notable aside from a "single event in their life that thrust them into the newspapers." Touchstone applies too. Looking at Google Trends, the site returns "your search doesn't have enough data to show here" for interest by subregion, related topics, and related queries. An article is likely not warranted based on this data. 2607:FB91:D92:4947:642F:7668:E701:E43C (talk) 02:40, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
• Draftify - I think it can definitely be improved I think it is just WP:TOOEARLY. Shadow345110 (talk) 00:55, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

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.