Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Wohl (3rd nomination)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. WP:SNOW keep. Consensus is that GNG is met; the nominator and others have been convinced by the substantial coverage demonstrated in the Keep !votes. Numerically it's something like 17-3 now. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:01, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Wohl

edit
AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Jacob Wohl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Just like the last time, and the time before, no amount of adding negative information will justify a strongly promotional article about this 20-year-old guy. wumbolo ^^^ 19:05, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​Pinging previous discussion participants. wumbolo ^^^ 19:08, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (responding to ping): The two previous articles on Wohl were rightfully deleted at AfD in June 2016 and April 2017 as promotional articles for a non-notable teenager. The current article is different, and as long as it does not turn into promotionalism and lies, and if the person is currently notable enough to pass GNG and NBIO without resorting to blatant PR and puff pieces as citations, then I don't have as much objection to it (particularly since there is nothing promotional about it, much less "strongly promotional" as the nominator claims), unless someone can convince me otherwise. I'll keep this AfD on my watchlist. Softlavender (talk) 19:19, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or move to a page called "Smear campaign against Robert Mueller" or something, as this is the sole reason he is notable. Althoungh the existence of this article may give unwarranted attention to this teenage clown who definitely outsmarted himself, the incident and its resulting reports is significant enough. Especially when he is under FBI investigation. All we need is to avoid PR edits per usual practice. I just can't wait to cement him into the list of hoaxes. Comical gold. Tsumikiria (T/C) 19:32, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    as this is the sole reason he is notable so delete per WP:BLP1E? wumbolo ^^^ 19:53, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    If the article does not bear standing as is (which is still debatable), rather than being deleted, the material should be merged into Robert Mueller or one of the articles on the Special Counsel Investigation or the Russian interference. Softlavender (talk) 20:03, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. If this is the case, then yes. He will likely remain as a low-profile individual. Although it is very likely that he will do more stupid things that spark future AfD nominations, his past "achievements" are irrelevant, at best. We could add a section under Robert Mueller or Special Counsel investigation (2017–present) instead. Merge Keep, from the current projection of this page Tsumikiria (T/C) 04:25, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This is really too minor of an event for a section in those articles. Perhaps a single sentence. Good luck trying to add more than that. wumbolo ^^^ 20:19, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep BLP1E says we can have articles on people notable for only one event if the event is significant and their role is significant. Press coverage is suggesting that will be the case for this new, bizarre development in his life. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:19, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The press coverage you linked seems to actually suggest that the event was debunked much before it even happened. WP:NOTNEWS might not even apply, because this is a non-event, if we go that way. wumbolo ^^^ 21:34, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (responding to ping) This is quite a different article from its last two iterations. It is focused on the one current event and I agree that per WP:BLP1E deletion is warranted. As I was trying to find sources, I ran across this quote from a Bloomberg opinion piece: "I must say that I liked Jacob Wohl a lot more when he was a comical fringe figure of the financial world than I do now that he’s a comical fringe figure of alt-right politics." A fringe figure is an appropriate description for a subject not meeting notability standards. Geoff | Who, me? 21:26, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above this is a minor fringe figure who has not been convicted of the political allegations and the financial misdemeaners were very commonplace unfortunately. There is a saying that all publicity is good publicity and this character certainly does not warrant it for his WP:BLP1E charades, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:35, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Even prior to the Mueller thing, he had plenty of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject Web, News, so this is not a WP:BLP1E instance. He is a noted "pro-Trump internet troll" (New York Times) and "alt-right influencer" (Wired). He is notable as a conspiracy theorist and as a fraudulent financier. He is also currently under investigation by the FBI. This new article, unlike the previous iterations written by SPAs, is devoid of promotionalism. Softlavender (talk) 21:38, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Misleading, apparently bad-faith nomination. The nominator never participated in the previous AfDs (and presumably also never saw those articles), and this new article is in no way promotional at all. The nominator nonetheless falsely claimed this new article is "strongly promotional" and immediately pinged participants in the old AfDs, in an apparent effort to get them to react to the false claim in his nomination rather than to actually read the new article or do due diligence. Softlavender (talk) 23:53, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, can't improve an article if it doesn't exist. X1\ (talk) 00:21, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I initially recommended deleting an earlier version of this article in April, 2017 but withdrew my !vote after Icewhiz expanded and improved the article considerably. See WP:HEYMANN. Now, we have a new round of significant coverage of Wohl from the Daily Beast, the Atlantic, GQ, Vox, CNN, Slate, NBC and so on. I considered him borderline notable a year and a half ago, but he is definitely notable now. This article should be kept and the useful content from the previously deleted versions should be added back into the current article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:08, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Only notable for his political stunt of the day, which will be forgotten within a week. Wikipedia should not give him a soapbox. — JFG talk 01:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Significant coverage here, plus purely fringe individuals don't usually appear as a subject on shows like Jimmy Kimmel Live! or receive in-depth coverage in Vanity Fair. Even read excessively strictly, he meets the GNG policy anyways. Isingness (talk) 01:41, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In 2017 we has an edit war between a promo account and other SPAs who were trying to highlight some of Wohl's many exploits (and we had a handful - running foul of the NFA, using Instagram models to lure clients, financial training courses that included IIRC hookers, his business dealings at age 17, claims around Rachel G. Fox, real estate, politics, and a bunch of other stuff) - all this received coverage (all be it local and in financial sites for various schemes) - and at last AfD I argued SIGCOV - in any event even back then it was not a 1E. The Muller thing obviously adds a whole bunch of new coverage - and only adds to notability here. I will also note this is a high profile and "noisy" individual - we will probably see yet more coverage. I do think there are balance issues in the present article but deletion is not cleanup.Icewhiz (talk) 02:05, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep soibangla (talk) 02:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a clear pass of WP:GNG. Issues of balance can be addressed through editing. Bakazaka (talk) 06:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this article has the potential to be of service to users trying to keep track of and understand events and persons associated with the Mueller investigation. KConWiki (talk) 13:10, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could NEVER, EVER disagree with Muboshgu or Cullen328. Having said that, I disagree with Muboshgu and Cullen328. I thought he was non-notable as a person before, and his involvement with this scam (ALLEGED scam, whatever) doesn't add much. We don't need an article on him to solidify our understanding of current political events, and to the extent that this is a noteworthy thing (all the more noteworthy since NOTNEWS has gone by the wayside), it can be covered in any of the two million articles associated with Trump, Mueller, etc., with a redirect for those who seek him. Nor do I see that recent coverage has added much to our understanding of this person and his biography--let me note, for instance, that the Vox article "nails" him in one and a half sentences: "a 20-year-old conservative who’s most famous for sending speedy sycophantic replies to Trump’s tweets and making implausible, factually dubious claims. He also ran some shady hedge funds." We can do that too, and we should, because there simply isn't that much to tell him. So, delete -- and/or redirect, if you like. Drmies (talk) 14:28, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There are more than enough reliable sources covering the subject to satisfy the GNG. If the article lacks balance or needs editing then edit it, that's what we do here. AfD is not for cleanup. EDIT: I also note there is apparently no puffery or promotion in this article, and it appears to me to simply state was the sources say. EnPassant (talk) 14:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Multiple news outlets are reporting this guy's involvement with a scheme to frame Robert Mueller for sexual assault. He wasn't notable before, but the way this is going, he's notable now. Lordbedo (talk) 16:58, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 16:23, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 16:23, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 16:23, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Or particle physics. Sky's the limit. Softlavender (talk) 13:33, 3 November 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jacob_Wohl_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=867090131"