Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Rich

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. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-24 12:14Z

[edit] Simon Rich

Simon Rich (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

NN person, article created by editor with history of being less than truthful, prod removed without comment by random IP— RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 16:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

(Changed to Keep based on new edits and information. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 12:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC) )

• Delete: I don't think a single New Yorker piece passes WP:BIO. No other sources, practically no other information. Change to Keep per Kubigula.  RGTraynor  16:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Smerge to Frank Rich; at this point in his career, a sentence or two in his father's article should cover him. --Dhartung | Talk 19:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I found this profile from the Boston Globe and this review from the NYT. The second one may be a slight COI (for the Times, not us), but he appears to meet WP:BIO despite his youth.--Kubigula (talk) 22:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Kubigula's sources point to enough notability to pass WP:BIO. Darkspots 08:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Now falls under WP:NOTE --St.daniel ^talk 11:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

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.