Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Troy Wragg (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 redirect to Mantria Corporation Ponzi Scheme. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Troy Wragg

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

No indication of WP:notability outside the context of Mantria Corporation Ponzi Scheme which already covers everything. SEC links not significant coverage to establish independent notability. noq (talk) 19:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. Only receives significant, independent coverage within the scope of the Mantria Scheme. dci | TALK 19:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete. Are you saying that running the biggest green energy scam in US history is not notable enough? That seems significant along, does one need to organize 2 of the biggest scams to be on wikipedia. This is on the top 50 list of biggest scams in the world. Should we remove Timothy McVeigh because he only blew up one big building? These guidelines are arbitrary, I believe. Richtowragg (talk) 19:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no content in the article unique from that within Mantria Corporation Ponzi Scheme. The McVeigh article covers significant amounts of content unique from the bombing article. dci | TALK 20:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- So, if I add more content, like about his childhood that makes him notable? I am trying to understand if this article is up for deletion because there is not enough new content or the person has not committed multiple, independent crimes to be notable.Richtowragg (talk) 20:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Probably not unless it has received significant coverage in WP:reliable sources. Just because he is covered in one event does not make him notable outside the context of that event. noq (talk) 20:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There will be a lot of national coverage and significant sources as the criminal trial begins. Richtowragg (talk) 20:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - About the Ponzi scheme, not anything else. noq (talk) 23:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PERP and WP:BLP1E. Mantria Corporation Ponzi Scheme is likely notable, but the article needs to be watched for BLP, WEIGHT, and RS issues. Location (talk) 02:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mantria Corporation Ponzi Scheme. WP:BLP1E, should not have its own page but is a likely search term, searchers should be pointed the the scheme if interested in the subject. J04n(talk page) 17:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mantria Corporation Ponzi Scheme, BLP1E, can be covered in context there. That article needs a NPOV cleanup, by the way. Sandstein 08:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mantria Corporation Ponzi Scheme, per Sandstein and others. Miniapolis 13:58, 24 March 2013 (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.