Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Down (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 no consensus. Randykitty (talk) 09:26, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Down[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 became aware of this mess of an article when summoned by bot to an RfC. The subject is a Utah businessman whose only claim to fame appears to be that he gets sued a lot by the SEC. Fails WP:BIO. Previous AfD ended inconclusively but the subject's notability has not increased with the passage of time, except perhaps for his getting sued. Coretheapple (talk) 17:01, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:26, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:26, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:15, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article has been a long-running battleground of various POV editors. I don't see any SNG that would be met, and the references are either about lawsuits, or are of the form "local businessman runs non-notable business". power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:05, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as sufficient sources exists. I was on the fence, thinking it was really only about him being sued a lot but besides that, he runs unusual businesses. No longer one event. POV pushing can be countered with page protection. Ifnord (talk) 04:34, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Sorry, nowhere close to meeting GNG other than coverage of being sued and trivial coverage in other weird issues.∯WBG^converse 10:54, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I could probably justify a close with what we've got now, but sending this back out for a week to see if we can get some more cogent analysis. There's lots of fails WP:WHATEVER, but I'm not seeing any analysis of why he fails those things.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:15, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Extensive coverage over an extended time period and extended geography. The fact that in-depth coverage of a subject focuses on litigation doesn't detract from notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:32, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per nom and previous comments. Good points on both sides, nomination makes the best. Redditaddict69 ^{(click here if I screwed up stuff again)} ^(edits) 09:31, 14 August 2018 (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.