Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Alexander (3rd 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 delete. The trend of the post-relistings comments is definitely for deletion, and the consensus seems to be that even though sources do exist, those sources are insufficient for establishing enduring encyclopedic notability. Deor (talk) 12:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Alexander[edit]

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

Same reasoning as last deletion discussion (see 2nd Nomination, article was deleted) about self-claim as most vain person in the world, which has many other claimants. Most of the claims are from 2006 in a single show, he mostly vanished from media after. The 1st link from 2011 isn't a reliable source. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 09:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Without seeing the previous (deleted) versions I am not sure to claim 'deleted article recreated', therefore ask for a speedy deletion; but I think the nominator is right. Delete. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 10:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was the declining administrator for speedy deletion; my reasoning was that (a) it was not an attack page, as everything was sourced appropriately and (b) I deemed that there were sufficient improvements from the previous version - there were only about 5 or 6 sources quoted then, there are now lots more, and these are from reasonable third party sources. Having said that, the tone is completely wrong for Wikipedia, he is only notable for WP:ONEEVENT so unless there is a complete rewrite to bring it in line with BLP, then the article should be deleted. Stephen! ^Coming... 11:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sourced well now. and even though "you can't buy your way to fame" --um, you can. Cramyourspam (talk) 16:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- No encyclopedic significance other than dubious spending claims and hyperbole. Carrite (talk) 04:28, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant keep Alexander the not-so-great. He's known for buying a Bulgarian village and his outsized vanity (bigger than Simon Cowell's!) / self-indulgence. This is shown by the fact that a later article in the Manchester Evening News doesn't even mention the village he bought. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he is notable for more than one reason. he was reported to have bought a town in bulgaria 1. http://metro.co.uk/2006/06/06/millionaire-names-own-town-155700/ (pic of the article): http://www.scottalexander.tv/admin/img/cke/1380518519_metro%20copy.jpg - separate to that incident, and over a year before buying a town, he was/is also known as the the 'vainest man in britain': http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-400222/Britains-vainest-man.html -- these are two separate events that have been written about in at least 10 different reliable sources. Both events were written about in a New Zealand source: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10385277 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 9th rock (talk • contribs) 12:29, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://metro.co.uk/2006/06/06/millionaire-names-own-town-155700/ -- "The 31-year-old lifestyle and property tycoon is turning a Bulgarian coastal town into a holiday hotspot for British tourists â and naming it after himself."

And years before buying the Bulgarian town: http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/showbiz-news/britains-vainest-man-wants-more-1047539 -- "There's no doubting he's had his fair share of lows since his appearance on the documentary - including being dubbed by national newspapers afterwards as "Britain's Vainest Man"."
Approximately 10 more reliable sources are in the article about at least two separate incidents that gave him national/international notability which is documented with sources .

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The principle is NOT TABLOID. There is nothing of encyclopedic value about his career. DGG ( talk ) 04:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Biblio worm 01:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sadly, per Cramyourspam. AdventurousMe (talk) 13:44, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think Carrite and DGG have summed it up well. While we often say "two articles in a major pub are good enough", it is simplistic to think that those sources really are enough to pass the rest of the criteria around here. In this case, the tabloid nature of the material doesn't pass the sniff test for an encyclopedia. Saying "you can buy your way to fame" doesn't apply here, as we aren't "fame", we are an encyclopedia, with a set of policies on inclusion designed to punt this kind of useless material. Instead, we let Mtv create reality shows on it. Dennis - 2¢ 17:19, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Claims of being the vainest man in britain require much better sourcing than this. TABLOID reporting is not reliable sourcing. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:18, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Carrite and Dennis Brown above. This is essentially a case of WP:NOTNEWS and/or WP:ONEEVENT, in that the tabloid-based reporting about one eccentric purchase made by the subject of this article is not sufficient to show notability or to justify a WP:BLP. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:07, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Aside for the page creator, nobody, not even the keep !voters, seems enthusiastic about the keeping of this pagespace. Other than buying a small resort in Bulgaria (the sort of minor feat which I suspect many rich people have done much more wisely and quietly), I can't find anything this fellow's ever done which rises to the level of inclusion in an online encyclopedia. Given the recent recreation, and the likelihood that the self-proclaimed "most vain man in the world" might persuade someone to again recreate the page, I suggest we limit future creation of this pagespace to autoconfirmed users. BusterD (talk) 22:45, 26 October 2014 (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.