Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethan Lindenberger

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 16:48, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Lindenberger

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

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

May violate WP:BLP1E I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 06:32, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 06:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 06:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If it was just for the media attention from the Reddit post, then yes, I would agree that it was a problem. Once he testified to Congress I think that was enough to pass beyond. Otherwise we would have to remove pages like that boy that was arrested for bringing clock parts to school and then he met President Obama, that was a one-event kinda thing. And also people who are only given Wikipedia pages because they bombed something or committed a crime, or they were a murder victim. They only have the one reason they are notable. So in this case I vote keep. Sgerbic (talk) 21:21, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The widespread coverage of this individual is barely a month old, so WP:SUSTAINED and BLP1E comes to mind. However one could argue he's not tied to just one event, but rather a series of events driven by his ongoing activism. The first event that gained coverage (early February) was his vaccination in defiance of his family's beliefs. The second event that was covered (this week) was his testimony to US Congress. According to the sources, the committee sought his perspective on penetrating anti-vaxxer culture, rather than just his personal story. His activism continues online and in the media. So clearly he is not a WP:LOWPROFILE individual BLP1E warns us against. I might add that an invitation to speak before Congress, not as a witness or subject of an investigation, is a significant honor for the purposes of WP:ANYBIO. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:28, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, how notable will he be even a year from now? If he becomes a notable activist then we should create an article on him, but this could turn out to just be a blip in the news. As for WP:ANYBIO, that appears to refer to someone who a formal honer is bestowed upon, I don't think testifying in a single congressional hearing counts unless it is a particularly notable hearing. Tornado chaser (talk) 16:37, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well this appears to be pretty "notable" not "put the President in jail" notable but this is very big news. The Congress reaching out to hear his story is very telling of his notability. His testimony was asked because it will address how best to make vaccine policy and deal with vaccine hesitant or anti-vax parents. Not sure what would impress you Tornado chaser if speaking to Congress is isn't a "particularly notable hearing". Sgerbic (talk) 17:51, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable for at least two events (and are now known worldwide).--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:55, 8 March 2019 (UTC) fixed a bit 07:58, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a clear violation of the not news guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:10, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Both his testimony and the topic on which he is becoming a figurehead are significant. What's more, given his age, it's unfair to suggest he should have done more to be notable. I'm personally very interested in the vaccine denial topic. While I have no COI I might have a bias. So I ran a thought experiment to see if I'm thinking clearly. If, for instance, there were an 18-year-old Flat Earth proponent who testified before Congress, I would, despite my personal feelings, consider that person to be notable.DolyaIskrina (talk) 04:31, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Rationale is given as WP:BLP1E but this doesn’t apply as the third criterion isn’t met, clearly the event IS significant and the individual's role WAS both substantial and well documented. One reason why this strikes me as particularly pertinent is whilst the anti-vax “movement” has in recent years spread rapidly through misinformation and social media, it is only now significant numbers of unvaccinated young people are reaching the age of majority in order for this to be important. Clearly this man is something of a landmark case, hence bringing him to congress.

WP:NOTNEWS also doesn’t apply as this has passed from routine news into public debate in multiple sources around the world, including for example Washington Post citing it in a secondary piece describing facebook and instagram’s blocking of anti vax content. Mramoeba (talk) 12:16, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The wide coverage is two-fold. First the Reddit post about vaccination, and then the Congress testimony. I might be more sympathetic if this was a case of WP:BLPCRIME or WP:AVOIDVICTIM, but it is neither and I have to !vote keep. The individual is not a minor, WP:BASIC is satisfied, and WP:1E may or may not apply. wumbolo ^^^ 10:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's a stronger case for meeting WP:BASIC than not, given the intense biography-level coverage in major sources and some speculating "something tells me we will be hearing from him again. Soon.". - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:32, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak Keep It is a news story, a sad one that highlights the backwards thinking some people have toward the scientifically-proven benefits of vaccines. However, enough has been shown above to prove to me this is more than a WP:BLP1E case.White Siddiqah (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2019 (UTC) -- Sock !vote. Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 16:47, 20 March 2019 (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.