Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Knapp (3rd 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Knapp

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

Knapp's milestone is certainly credible, but I question the ability to which his accomplishments merit an article of their own. As per WP:NPF, he is not known outside of Wikipedia to the point where an article is required. Userify?. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 03:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sunshineisles2: I will recuse myself from an actual !vote on the topic for obvious reasons but I will ask what you think is different for this nomination versus the other two or what you made of the consensus the first two times? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Justin -- the previous nomination(s) used a justification of "notable for one event", whereas I feel that while you have accomplished much, I don't feel like you're a very well recognized figure outside of the immediate Wikipedian community. Many users don't know that there is a running tally of individuals with most edits to their name, let alone who is #1.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 04:15, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 June 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:10, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NPF is explicitly about people who are "notable enough for their own article" and is guidance for how to write in such cases. It is obviously not a reason to delete the entire page because the notable aspects remain. Andrew D. (talk) 07:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:21, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per Andrew, this is the third deletion discussion and the reason given for deletion is based on a misreading of policy. Bosstopher (talk) 10:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Keep Ordinarily I'd side with a one event delete, but being a gamer I just can't bring myself to delete and article about the guy who holds the high score. Dethrone him first, then we can talk :) TomStar81 (Talk) 11:33, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:BLP1E requires the subject to be low-profile. The subject was willing to be interviewed, which fails WP:BLP1E. There is quite a bit of coverage; meets WP:BASIC. Esquivalience ^t 21:35, 22 June 2015 (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.