Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Epstein

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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Epstein

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

Non-notable faux intellectual whose article is a mere stub. There is not even a slight chance for this article to be anything more than a stub given Wikipedia's guidelines and criteria for inclusion. Laval (talk) 00:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Epstein has written for high-profile profile publications including The Wall Street Journal, FOX News, Baltimore Chronicle, but the only thing approaching secondary coverage I came across was this interview. Unless reliable secondary sources with significant coverage of Epstein emerge, it would be best to merge/redirect this to Ayn Rand Institute (I don't see any case for deletion, per se). Skomorokh 14:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No comments on his status as an "intellectual", although if this article is kept, that bit will need to be removed as POV. He's a young, published writer. As such, his only notability is through his writing which does not satisfy WP:N. There are no third-party sources to speak of, save for what Skomorokh points out above, and he fails WP:ACADEMIC if we are to look at him as an "intellectual". This is a fluff piece written to raise his profile: not a reason for deletion per se, but to edit the article properly in order to remove the fluff would leave very little to work with. freshacconci talktalk 12:37, 26 August 2010 (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.