Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bret Weinstein

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 The_Evergreen_State_College#2017_protests. There appears to be consensus that there is insufficient notability for a standalone article about Weinstein. However, since he was involved in an event that received national media attention, "Bret Weinstein" is a likely search term and the reader should be directed to the content they are seeking. Since Weinstein is mentioned by name at The Evergreen State College, that is the appropriate target for the redirect. If anyone feels there is content still to be merged into the target article, the content will remain available in the page history. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:05, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bret Weinstein

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

Only notable for one event. (Evergreen State College). See WP:BLP1E. At best, this should be a redirect. Bueller 007 (talk) 02:12, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Merge/redirect. WP:BLP1E. WP:Prof not passed yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:23, 2 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep There's more in depth coverage of the event and its aftermath, such that 1E does not apply: [1], [2], [3]. Weinstein is also the author of various scholarly articles: [4], [5], etc., along with various "thanks to" in other papers from peers and students, his dissertation, a patent application, and then there's this, a forthcoming academic commentary on the incident, to which I do not appear to have free access. Overall, the continuing coverage afterwards, combined with his previous RS publications, render this far outside the WP:BLP1E realm. Jclemens (talk) 06:02, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. Also while he doesn't meet WP:PROF, he does have significant coverage, enough to meet WP:SIGCOV. Policypolicy (talk) 12:30, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 06:10, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 06:10, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- He has been a prof for at least a decade, and he has fewer publications than most biologists get during their PhD... He clearly does not meet WP:PROF and that level of scholarly output is nowhere near grounds for inclusion. He is relevant only in the context of Evergreen State. Hence BLP1E. Bueller 007 (talk) 14:38, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why are you arguing against WP:PROF, nobody argued he fits the requirements for WP:PROF, WP:BLP1E requires 3 conditions. A seperate article can be made if the event was significant and the individuals role was significant. The event was both significant and centered around Bret Weinstein, which is why I argue to keep the page. Policypolicy (talk) 07:47, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all relevant content to The_Evergreen_State_College#2017_protests and Redirect. The events at Evergreen are ongoing, as is all the drama surrounding Professor Weinstein, which could potentially steer in a direction not directly related to the one event that brought him into the spotlight. So the {{R with possibilities}} tag should definitely stay. But as it stands I have to agree he doesn't meet WP:PROF. -- œ^™ 06:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- No one has suggested he meets WP:PROF. The GNG, on the other hand, is clearly met. Jclemens (talk) 08:25, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect. All notability is concentrated around a single sequence of events, the 2017 protests and their aftermath. The article on the protests is a better place to cover this, since we have nothing interesting to say about his biography or scholarly work. The news stories about him mention a fraternity-whistleblowing incident when he was a college student but that's not enough to save this from WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:33, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect The person is not notable, the person's involvement in a single event is. Redirect and cover the person's involvement there. TheValeyard (talk) 23:29, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete This article is clearly a NPOV violation, written with an attempt to downplay the racism inherent in the attacks on Weinstein. It is clearly written to falsely convey mob demands as "invitations".John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:22, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia is not news. The events around Weinstein's standing up to racist attempts to exclude people for a day from a campus based on their race is a news story. The whole incident of mob violence at Evergreen College might be worth an article, but it in no way makes Weinstein notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:24, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:BLP1E. Weinstein is known exclusively in connection with a news story and is otherwise a low-profile individual. AusLondonder (talk) 14:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ANYBIO (unsurprising, notable biologists rarely teach at minor "non-traditional" colleges; they need labs). No redirect necessary; the sole even for which he is notable is already covered at The Evergreen State College#2017 protests. The incident/protests/lawsuit may become notable enough to be a stand-alone article, as someone said above. Time will tell. But Weinstein lacks notability apart from BLP1E. E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:56, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Deletion discussions are not polls, add a choice if it adds a new point, or reply.Policypolicy (talk) 07:48, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 08:03, 9 September 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.