Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Phillips (entrepreneur)

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. Sustained notability shown sufficient to pass WP:GNG. Non-admin closure per WP:NAC #1. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:53, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Phillips (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

An unusual one, but I think this is a case of WP:1E. The man discovered a way to get a good deal and there was coverage of this. But was it lasting or truly significant? Boleyn (talk) 07:09, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is anything truly significant? Keep Spencerk (talk) 19:25, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spencerk (creator), how do you think he meets WP:NOTABILITY? Boleyn (talk) 20:35, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boleyn hi Boleyn, if the article was refocused to become 1999 Healthy Choice promotion scandal, or something, would that fit wp:notability guidelines? thanks Spencerk (talk) 17:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spencerk, possibly, if there was good enough sourcing to meet WP:GNG, although not from what is on it so far. Boleyn (talk) 18:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boleyn Thanks, yeah. Given its international coverage, its treatment in a major motion picture, and the place the story has in culture, I think it can be worked on. Thanks for your help Spencerk (talk) 15:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - this is about as classic a case of WP:BLP1E as I've ever seen. I do recall this stunt. It lasted in the news long enough so that he gained his 15 minutes of fame. The subject has done nothing significant since. I remind the gentle reader that truly is not part of WP:GNG, and fame is not the same as notability. Bearian (talk) 01:49, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:20, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well-covered at the time [1][2], people have continued to write about him [3][4][5] and Phillips' story was the genesis for a feature film by a leading American director [6]. Rename/refocus can be discussed outside of AfD, but this is readily sourceable content of continuing interest and shouldn't be lost. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:55, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I can learn. I can change. Arxiloxos has proven to my satisfaction that the subject is notable, with ongoing coverage of his life and "stunt". I still hate everything Adam Sandler has done since Big Daddy (1999 film), and no amount of arguing will convince me otherwise. Bearian (talk) 13:46, 1 April 2017 (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.