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.
Keep... there is fairly extensive coverage in more than one reliable source (especially the WSJ article). I think it boaderline, but it is on the notable side of the line.
Blueboar (
talk)
17:18, 18 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep per
WP:GNG,
WP:SIGCOV in multiple RSs. I've had my differences with Steve but I think he's ultimately an even-handed and honest type. This is certainly a borderline case and I can see how reasonable people might differ on it. My rationale for keeping is ultimately from the nomination itself - if you state "only notable for X, otherwise not notable", well, then it must be notable, if only for that one thing.
WP:1E doesn't apply as this is not a biographical article. There's no other obvious merge/redirect target so the information appears to be in the right place.
FOARP (
talk)
20:11, 18 December 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.
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.
Keep... there is fairly extensive coverage in more than one reliable source (especially the WSJ article). I think it boaderline, but it is on the notable side of the line.
Blueboar (
talk)
17:18, 18 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep per
WP:GNG,
WP:SIGCOV in multiple RSs. I've had my differences with Steve but I think he's ultimately an even-handed and honest type. This is certainly a borderline case and I can see how reasonable people might differ on it. My rationale for keeping is ultimately from the nomination itself - if you state "only notable for X, otherwise not notable", well, then it must be notable, if only for that one thing.
WP:1E doesn't apply as this is not a biographical article. There's no other obvious merge/redirect target so the information appears to be in the right place.
FOARP (
talk)
20:11, 18 December 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.