Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rob Monster (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 keep. Early WP:SNOW close. Voluminous keep votes, no opposition. Concerns raised that nominator is an SPA. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Epik (___domain registrar), by the same nominator on similar grounds and subject (non-admin closure) CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:31, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Monster

[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)

The subject of this article does not meet the guidelines for notability and the article content shows bias to the subject matter being described. The person being described in this article does not qualify as notable in the Wikipedia sense. Thank you. NameShiba (talk) 01:24, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep (Noting for full transparency that I created this article, and have continued to be involved in editing this article.) There is an ongoing campaign, coordinated offwiki, to whitewash Epik (___domain registrar) (the company of which Rob Monster is CEO). That has been unsuccessful, and so the nominator has now nominated both that article (at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Epik (___domain registrar)) and this one for deletion. Monster has not become less notable since the last time the article was nominated for deletion, though I will say he doesn't seem to have gained any further coverage in any kind of sourcing we could use, either. But he's pretty clearly (in my opinion) notable in his own right—while he is known for his work as the CEO of Epik, he has also made a name for himself through his commentary on various political topics. In the first deletion nomination there was some talk of merging/redirecting his article to the article on Epik, but that content could not reasonably be merged to the Epik article without making it a WP:COATRACK. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:36, 21 April 2020 (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/2020 April 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:41, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:45, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:45, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per the recent AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rob Monster, meets GNG with SIGCOV in the HuffPost and well as coverage in several other WP:RS/P. Noting the OP tried to whitewash Epik (___domain registrar), and when overturned by the consensus, also nominated it for AfD, another poorly formed nomination. Britishfinance (talk) 10:45, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- plenty of WP:RS to establish WP:GNG. --David Tornheim (talk) 11:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's easily enough coverage in reliable sources to satisfy notability requirements. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:24, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Like the Epik (___domain registrar) article, there is enough coverage from WP:RS (e.g. Vice) to satisfy WP:GNG. Plus, like the AfD for that page, this smells of WP:VAGUEWAVE. MiasmaEternal^TALK 22:58, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Britishfinance. Nominator is a brand new accound and seems to be a WP:SPA... ♟♙ (talk) 19:42, 23 April 2020 (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.