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.
"mostly known for his lavish lifestyle" Remarkable number of BLP violation. The principle here is NOT TABLOID. Article originated by now-banned sockmaster. DGG (
talk )
00:38, 10 January 2018 (UTC)reply
<sigh> keep. There are hundreds if not thousands of
famous for being famous socialites on wikipedia. IMO meets GNG for non-trivial life events. If it were for me I'd deleted them all poker players and Kardashians. But obviously these are modern heroes of dumb masses fed by mass media.
Staszek Lem (
talk)
01:03, 10 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment The fundamental principle is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia . we do have articles on opeople who arenotable for getting publicity, band assorted socialites, but the combination of relatively minor coverage and total puffery makes this the most extreme of them all. DGG (
talk )
05:58, 12 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:NOT, tabloid being one of them. The individual has not accomplished anything significant. Article consists of trivia such as: "In February 2015, Bilzerian pleaded no contest to a misdemeanor charge of "negligently failing to extinguish a fire in the open" and was fined $17,231.50" Etc. Sources are not suitable for establishing notability.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
02:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep. One of the most famous media personalities in the world - proved not only by 15 Wikipedia articles in other languages but also by record-breaking number of followers on Instagram and Facebook (thus his nickname) as well as daily coverage in the press and on television internationally. A few users' opinion about his relevance here shouldn't compromise the fact that Bilzerian is way too overqualified for all
WP:BLP requirements.
Shalom11111 (
talk)
13:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete Ultra fluffy and lacking in encyclopaedic value. Most of the content is negative and unless there is opposing positrive coverage then this is too insignificant a person for such unflattering coverage.
SpartazHumbug!06:20, 18 January 2018 (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.