Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brandon Fleisher (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 delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:42, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Fleisher

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

Very shaky. On the edge of one event notability Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed just now that the first proposal was closed as "Delete" with the current article not adding any info or improving. So, I propose Bold Delete. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many new credible sources were added. Investor101 (talk) 10:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete slowly. The content is completely different from what got removed at the first AFD, so it's not a repost. However, the subject also isn't notable: he's not getting secondary-source coverage. Nyttend (talk) 15:23, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How is making 100,000 at the age of 18, while running a business, and being covered in the largest newspapers and media outlets in Hong Kong, the US, Canada, England, and more not notable? Investor101 (talk) 22:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, the issue is the lack of coverage in secondary sources; news reports about his latest activities are primary sources. Nyttend (talk) 23:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete ho evidence it is skills rather than luck. One can easily win 100,000 in poker just as well. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now at best as none of this currently suggest a better notable article. Notifying 1st AfDers LaMona and John Pack Lambert. SwisterTwister talk 02:34, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I haven't changed my mind. This is one of those "gee-whiz" stories that gets picked up, but none of the articles says anything about him. Plus, the story is: someone made money on the stock market. That's not news. We're talking about $60K, not millions. It's a "man bites dog" story, and definitely not encyclopedic. LaMona (talk) 03:01, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is still a WP:BLP1E of a person who doesn't have enough sustained notability to warrant an encyclopedia article at this time. He might well get over our inclusion standards in the future, but right now it's just WP:TOOSOON. And given the article topic's field of endeavour, the creator's username, "Investor101", still strongly implies a direct conflict of interest. As always, Wikipedia is not a place where anybody is entitled to an article just because they can be verified as existing, and that goes double if they're creating the article themselves — we're an encyclopedia, not a public relations platform, and nothing here suggests that he's earned encyclopedia coverage as of yet. Bearcat (talk) 18:27, 13 January 2016 (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.