Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Ginn

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 Delete arguments cite BLP1E along with the possibility of COI. The Keep arguments cite rather weak general notability claims, along with concern that deleting the article might be criticized by some outsiders. The Delete arguments are clearly stronger. MelanieN (talk) 01:10, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Ginn[edit]

[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)

I struggle to see how this individual may be notable. He has a fairly routine career, but there’s really nothing that sets him apart. - Biruitorul ^Talk 07:24, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:42, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A skillful observer has noted that this article appears to have been created by its subject - https://twitter.com/gelliottmorris/status/1241829401265876992?s=20. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:52, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not remotely even asserting notability, likely COI. Reywas92^Talk 21:07, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense – the article contains a clear claim of notability – appearance in a Forbes 30 Under 30 list. Another source has the subject appearing in "The Wired Political Power List – Silicon Valley’s 20 most influential insiders." Andrew🐉(talk) 10:21, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject is in the news because they wrote an analysis of the coronavirus situation which was posted on Medium but which has been taken down. This takedown has been making waves – for example, see the Wall Street Journal, which is calling for transparency. As this is an ongoing situation, we shouldn't rush to delete this article too as this will feed the feeling that some sort of cover-up is underway. Better to keep everything out in the open and just restructure the topic if we feel that the CV aspect is the main topic rather than the person. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:09, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That post is not exactly J'Accuse…! (and Ginn is no Zola). As noted below, writing one controversial blog post does not quite confer encyclopedic notability. As for the “feed the feeling” argument: I can’t find it in WP:BIO. - Biruitorul ^Talk 06:39, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have no difficulty finding earlier coverage of the subject in a book published by the Oxford University Press. The more you tell me there's nothing to see here, the less convincing it seems. See Streisand effect. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:46, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please review WP:BASIC: “People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.”
    - Our subject has not met that lofty standard; on the contrary, all we have are trivial mentions and various unusable bits of chaff. - Biruitorul ^Talk 12:25, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - The "coverage of the subject" in that OUP book is at the "trivial mention" level. XOR'easter (talk) 14:55, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        The OUP source passes WP:SIGCOV. Now that we have more sources and development of the topic, I'm updating my !vote to a straight Keep. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:56, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost certainly an undisclosed COI, which we should not reward. People can cry "conspiracy" and "cover-up" all they like — and nowadays, anyone who doesn't like what we do will go ahead and do that, no matter how careful we are. We should follow our own policies and guidelines and live with integrity, rather than starting at shadows and trying to second-guess our way out of potential arguments that wouldn't even be made in good faith anyway. Even if there is a critique of his (incredibly ill-informed) take in a more convenient and stable publishing venue than Twitter, he's really only known for the one thing. We could potentially commemorate him in Misinformation related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic, but there is no need to have an article about him, or to preserve the history of this one. XOR'easter (talk) 00:12, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable person in political science.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:57, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant coverage in Philanthropy_(magazine) at [1]. He also gets coverage in places [2] [3] for his political organization. Articles about growth hacking always mention him, he cited as an expert in the field by his peers [4] [5] I agree that him being in the Forbes 30 Under 30 list and the Wired magazine's "Political Power List" adds to the case of his notability. Dream Focus 16:13, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Forbes names 930 people to its 30/30 lists every year, I'm pretty sure we've well established this does not count for notability. Still none of these links are significant coverage about Ginn; a WP:FORBES Contributor essay sharing a quote of his is not sufficient. Reywas92^Talk 19:31, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait, just one publication names 930 people to a list of people under 30 each year. This is clearly not even remotely close to showi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnpacklambert (talk • contribs)
Delete Seconded suspicions of COI. I don't think he even warrants a mention on Misinformation related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. cave (talk) 13:58, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added enough context around the COVID-19 controversy across three publications — Wall Street Journal, Slate and The Guardian — about coverage of the essay removal to give context. Significance is less about Ginn and his career, and more about the removal of the essay. This removal by Medium is a notable step by Silicon Valley companies taking editorial responsibility for the content on their platforms, and it will be referenced in historical/academic analysis in the future. — jenny8lee^(talk) 15:08, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep media coverage over the years passes WP:GNG including the 2013 profile of their project, 2017 recognition in Forbes, and 2020 coverage of COVID-19 activism. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:49, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIGCOV Lightburst (talk) 16:27, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - arguably a case of WP:BLP1E, a news article masquerading as a biography. I've reviewed the other sources that don't relate to the recent story, and none of them amounts to 'significant coverage' of him in my view. The coverage in the recent stories isn't enough; as a rule, we shouldn't have biographies on people known only for one event. The content about his controversial article could be merged somewhere, but it doesn't justify a Wikipedia biography. Robofish (talk) 19:47, 31 March 2020 (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.