Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Koch

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. Sam Walton (talk) 21:25, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Koch (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)

This article is autobiographical, was dictated by Koch to a friend to write for self promotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sofiaevery (talk • contribs) 08:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Koch himself wrote this article and dictated it to a friend so it could be created for his own self promotion and advertising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Assis1971 (talk • contribs) 08:50, 13 October 2016 (UTC) — Assis1971 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Sofiaevery, I note that you created this article five years ago, so you are presumably the friend to whom Koch dictated this. Could you expand a bit more on your reason for your change of mind about its suitability for Wikipedia? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 10:50, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not meant to be an oral history project.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:39, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I must point out that the article was in this state before the nominator gutted it. That comment should be taken simply as a statement of fact and not as an argument for keeping or deleting. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:37, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The reasons for deletion cited above are WP:SURMOUNTABLE. The previous version of the bio was terrible for all sorts of reasons, but didn't egregiously violate WP:BLP in a way that could harm a living person, and it least asserted notability, such as firsts, and cited a source for it.[1] Many of those links to Koch's own website were mirrors of reliable sources; such links are not ideal but they were evidence that the sources exist, which is what AfD is concerned with. These edits deleted everything and replaced it with only a single negative event, turning it into an Attack page.

  Koch was the subject of a profile in Outside (magazine) in 2003, and again in 2004. Koch was interviewed on Late Night with Conan O'Brien in 2003, and was the subject of an article in Sports Illustrated in 2003. There's a few pages at least devoted to Koch in a 2012 book published by ABC-CLIO. Could stop right there. WP:GNG met. But there's also a large number of short-to-medium pieces about of Koch in Outside and in other sources [2][3][4][5][6]. And the incident the attack page is based on. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I find it difficult to believe that this is anything other that a bad-faith nomination, being made by the creator of the article after deletion of everything other than a claim that reflects badly on the subject. I always try to assume good faith, but the evidence here is clear enough to override that assumption. I think the best way to deal with this would be to close this discussion, but allow an editor acting in good faith (maybe Johnpacklambert?) to nominate with a proper rationale, and without obvious sockpuppetry, if it is thought that the subject is not notable. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Ad hominem belongs at WP:AN/I or WP:SPI or whatever. If an editor is misbehaving, seek sanctions at the appropriate noticeboard. The topic either meets the criteria or it doesn't, regardless of who is making the arguments. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets GNG via sources found by Dennis, "Oral History" is not a valid convincing theory either as the sources exist. GuzzyG (talk) 17:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Despite the disruption behind the article, the subject does meet WP:GNG. The article itself is riddled with self-published sources and deadlinks and needs to be rewritten, but there is an in depth in Sports Illustrated [7] and Outside [8]. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:06, 10 November 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.