Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Sayman (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 delete. However, blocking editors is not the purview of AfD. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Sayman[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)

Article doesn't meet WP:BLP conditions for notability; fails WP:GNG.

Recommending WP:SALT. This page was nominated for deletion in October 2018, resulting in an overwhelming consensus of Delete; however, the page was re-created in its entirety merely 3 days after page deletion. Please find the original discussion and its verdict at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Sayman. Radio Adept (talk) 18:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Regardless of whether this article is kept or deleted, salting seems extreme. The subject seems borderline for notability; if he isn't now, he certainly could be later, and I believe a reasonable argument could be made that he is. While an argument can be made that recreating a freshly deleted article is bad enough form to deserve no encouragement, the resulting article seems to be edited by a wide range of editors in a way that contraindicates serious issues like self-promotion, and implies a number of Wikipedians have independently decided this project is worthy of their time and attention. Salting would be a fairly radical reaction here. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 04:49, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to noptable. Salting is justified considering the blatant and vlagrant defiance of the last consensus to delete.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm against the proposal for creation protection for the reasons mentioned above, but I believe this article should be deleted per nom. FredModulars (talk) 04:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see any specific notability cause for this young man right now. Yes, he has run the hard yards and saved his family from destitution, and yes, he is a wunderkind. None of this confers notability. This is not to say he won't get it, later on. Likely, he will take over from Zukerberg ten years from now, like this. This is a case of WP:TOOSOON. With regard to the matter of recreation of the article three days after deletion discussion, my sense is WP:SALT is going too far. However, User Purplehippo458 should be blocked indefinitely. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:03, 12 January 2021 (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.