Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Denyer

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. AFD has been running for over a month, no realistic possibility of the article being deleted based on the below. This is not a bar to an appropriate merger. Stifle (talk) 16:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Denyer[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)

WP:BLP1E and no discernible profiles of his writing to meet WP:AUTHOR Yogiile (talk) 21:53, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, and United Kingdom. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:00, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. The subject is only known for a single event, a controversy about sexual misconduct at the Washington Post. Apart from that he is a low profile individual. Hut 8.5 19:40, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that the small amount of coverage of another minor controversy is enough to overcome these concerns. Per WP:NPF we should consider not even including this information in an article about an unknown BLP at all. And being a bureau chief of the Washington Post is not enough to establish notability per WP:BIO. Hut 8.5 12:43, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bureau chief of a notable publication is enough to establish notability. Also, I am not sure why WP:BLP1E is brought in here. There are accusations of plagiarism which has multiple full article length discussions other than his sexual misconducts. WP:BLP1E is applicable only when "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event." We have many coverages like [1], [2] and [3] which aren't about the incident of his sexual misconduct. Hence WP:BLP1E isn't applicable here and the person seems notable even without the chapter of sexual misconduct. Cirton (talk) 08:12, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:23, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Kirtos67. --Vaco98 (talk) 03:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:42, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Washington Post - This article seems like a WP:BLP violation to me. Between the Daily Beast reports and the Washingtonian report, I do think the subject meets WP:GNG. Unfortunately, I don't see how we could write an article about the subject while meeting WP:BLP. If desired, someone could write an article about the specific allegations regarding Denyer, Kaiman, and the Post's China bureau. That said, I don't think deletion is necessary here: regarding merge target, we don't have an article on Felicia Sonmez or her lawsuit, but it doesn't look like the Post article is so long that it can't be expanded with three sentences (about the lawsuit, the allegations against Denyer, and his resignation). (A further note on sources: the Foreign Policy blog doesn't explicitly mention Denyer, and the plagiarism sources are only passing mentions; if the article were kept, they could support at most a single sentence, and don't contribute to my assessment of notability.)Suriname0 (talk) 23:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, seems to have points of notability enough, if not aplenty. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:42, 21 March 2022 (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.