Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fredrick Brennan (2nd nomination)

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 Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:21, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fredrick Brennan[edit]

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

Person is not notable outside creating an imageboard, which has its own page. Lucasoutloud (talk) 23:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As per previous nomination: person has earned extensive coverage in his own right. The articles by the New York Times and Al Jazeera, which are the best and the most indepth articles about him, do not even mention the imageboard. --GRuban (talk) 02:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per GRuban Aparslet (talk) 05:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Has been discussed tonnes of times. Brennan is clearly not just a BLP1E man. Brustopher (talk) 09:47, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. AfD nominator is a dormant account (last edits were in December 2014). Article definitely meets WP:GNG. Likely bad faith nomination. sst^flyer 10:07, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A lot of sources on this article appear to be of questionable reliability; and given the nature of Brennan's claim to notability, I'm skeptical that this can improve much. Unsure if this is a reason not to have an article, though. 74.12.92.201 (talk) 09:33, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep because the coverage seems acceptable albeit common to the usual media topics though. Pinging past commenters Salvidrim, Aldnonymous and TheRedPenOfDoom. SwisterTwister talk 06:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes GNG; his message board is obviously notable as well. Carrite (talk) 15:25, 28 September 2015 (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.