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. BLP1E takes precedence here. I would be very cautious about including information about him in the article on the publication DGG ( talk ) 22:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nico Hines (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 guy has not done anything noteworthy besides writing one controversial article on a website. He deserves mention on The Daily Beast's article, but is not even close to deserving his own page. BaseballPie (talk) 18:36, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: WP:BLP1E. Toddst1 (talk) 18:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: On the talk page for the Daily Beast, someone has objected to this material's presence in the Daily Beast article. generic_hipster 18:42, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: and no mantion on Daily Beast page either. Wikipedia is not tabloid to list all idiots somewhere. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. JudgeRM (talk to me) 19:39, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: Would this article qualify for inclusion if it was about the article or incident itself? TIA generic_hipster 19:41, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: too soon. Give it a few weeks for more articles on this guy to surface. He will soon warrant an article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.112.153 (talk) 21:01, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. JudgeRM (talk to me) 19:41, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. JudgeRM (talk to me) 19:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy deletion, WP:BLP1E. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 20:53, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:ONEEVENT. We all do stupid things every now and then that don't deserve a Wikipedia article on them. Possibly merge to the Daily Beast article in a controversies section: you could argue that publishing it unedited is very poor judgment akin to this case, worthy of mention. But an entire article on this person solely covering this one topic verges on cyberbullying. Blythwood (talk) 22:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy deletion Having read WP:BLP1E, I am now even more sure than ever before that this needs to be deleted. Textbook case.

The incident itself also does not come close to deserving an article. It deserves at best a short paragraph on the Daily Beast page, which is what it has right now. Finally, the "just wait and see... this guy is evil and we will soon learn more" argument is just plain silly and about as far away from meeting the relevant standards as you can get. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BaseballPie (talk • contribs) 22:31, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that Hines has other mentions in the media, or awards for his work with the times, that would warrant an article. This article is pretty shoddy, and needs to be worked on more carefully. 66.87.113.199 (talk) 22:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:40, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete under WP:G10. The controversy is worth mentioning on The Daily Beast (where it is indeed covered), but there's insufficient justification for a separate article, and especially not one framed as a BLP. Robofish (talk) 23:30, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, now that significant improvements have been made to the article. generic_hipster 23:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, keeping the history due to ongoing talks at the talk page for The Daily Beast. This article appears to fail the inclusion guideline for journalists. generic_hipster 06:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Sharia patrols and Daily Beast. His misreporting about Muslim patrols will be appropriate for the former article. Looks like it's not just "one stupid thing", it's two. Almost tempted to vote "keep" here.Guccisamsclubs (talk) 00:42, 26 August 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.