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 and redirect to List of Wikipedia controversies. T. Canens (talk) 00:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Clark Young[edit]

Robert Clark Young (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)

Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:1E may apply as well. This is an exceedingly minor writer who fails the criteria set forth for writers under the guideline. His claim to fame is that he was held up as an example of COI by a writer for Salon. Yeah, I know, COI is terrible. But that doesn't mean that we pillory people who engage in COI. I've edited the article to remove much of the large amount of material relating to his Wikipedia editing, which clearly is in breach of WP:UNDUE. Possibly the whole thing should go under WP:WELLKNOWN due to a lack of multiple independent sources. What remains just doesn't strike me as sufficient to support a stand-alone article on this person, and is overwhelmingly negative. He is mentioned in List of Wikipedia controversies. That is sufficient. Coretheapple (talk) 22:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Wikipedia controversies. He is mainly notable for that controversy. --Tataral (talk) 13:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Tartaral. I can't find anything unrelated to WP that would get this away from WP:BLP1E, and the less navel-gazing we do in article space, the better. VQuakr (talk) 09:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I suggest that any redirect page be created after deletion. I note that there seems to be agreement that the grounds for deletion are there. This is a BLP, and it is important that the page not simply be reverted back. Coretheapple (talk) 14:43, 21 January 2017 (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.