Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Shing

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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 18:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David Shing

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

Article is barely a stub; does not assert any kind of notability for the individual other than "works for AOL". Jorm (talk) 23:15, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think my favourite part of this is the presumptive redlink on the term "digital prophet", as if that were a thing that there will ever actually be an article about. But yeah, I'm not seeing a strong claim of actual notability, as opposed to mere existence, here. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 23:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 23:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 23:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Shingy" is notable for being both a symbol of post-Web 2.0 excesses and as an indicator of how far AOL has fallen from its dotcom heights. He was profiled in several notable publications in May of this year—see David Shing#References. DanielPenfield (talk) 13:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Shitty stub, but when the three footnotes are substantial coverage in The New Yorker, Details, and The Guardian, GNG is fulfilled and we are done here. A good bio for somebody to work on sometime... IDONTLIKEIT or ITDOESNTSEEMIMPORTANT are not valid rationales for deletion. Carrite (talk) 16:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The quality of the article notwithstanding, there is plenty of significant coverage to qualify it for gng.Jacona (talk) 18:45, 2 December 2015 (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.