Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathaniel Elliott

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 delete. Keep "votes" do not address the fact that news coverage is not in itself sufficient to establish notability. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nathaniel Elliott

Subject fails WP:BIO. At least two sources are not independent. The sources that are, talk about his bus project rather than Elliott himself. Delete Mgm|^(talk) 21:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Mind-numbingly non-notable, written like an advertisement. High COI to boot--author is MyElliott (talk · contribs). Blueboy 96 21:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 03:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not appear to meet the notability guidelines. (I dispute mind-numbingly, but it is Monday morning, so my mind's already numb to begin with...) --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 14:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he got covered for what he did in the Washingtonb post as documeted int he article and I also found ths Omaha World Herald article. There's also some articles behind pay walls I can't access. -- Whpq (talk) 15:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like another user said, Nathaniel Elliott is certainly noteworthy enough to be considered. He received coverage in the Washington Post as a high school student. Reread that last sentence. Isn't that in and of itself enough to warrant his inclusion in Wikipedia, not to mention the fact he is doing work to combat the greatest pandemic facing the world today. If the Washington Post considers him noteworthy enough to dedicate their time and resources to write an article about him, then Wikipedia shouldn't have any hesitation in adding him. Honestly, the fact this is even being debated should be embarrassing for Wikipedia. When news sources as reputable as the Washington Post or even the Omaha Herald (a publication for a major city) are covering a person's actions, that person is, by definition, "newsworthy," and, by association, "noteworthy." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.251.242.175 (talk) 15:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete reading closely, there is not an assertion of significance. Frankly, raising $43,000 is not significant enough to be considered of encylopedic merit. What he is doing is commendable, but not sufficiently notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Sources presented are either promotional, under the control of the subject or related organizations, or not sufficiently in depth to meet notability requirements. Coverage in reliable sources is not broad enough. One might say that the quality of the writing in the article-- vague, promotional, shallow in depth could be remediable through sourcing and editing. (I've said that myself in other cases.) However, that is not the case here unless significant, in depth, verifiable information|from reliable sources is brought forth. I find no in depth bio profile from a news service. Were he notable, someone would have made one. I find no national news service coverage. Not even a limited blurb or one off. I find limited news coverage with little more information than is presented in this article. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 16:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Nathaniel was on Fox New, CNN and other new outlets concerning Living Hope. He conducted a national wide, 70-day trip that raised $70,000 and $50,000 before the trip began. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Felipito1818 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Got news coverage. - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Almost forgot-- getting news coverage is not sufficient to establish notability. This was not significant media coverage, it is barely even news coverage, and Wikiepdia is not the news. Also, just being mentioned on Fox New or CNN, and no links are presented to establish such, is not the same as in depth, significant media coverage. And if subject was mentioned in the context of an event, the article should be about the event. No indication of significant coverage of the event, either. Dloh cierekim 18:06, 23 April 2009 (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.