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) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 04:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Peter Brant II

Peter Brant II (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Does not seem to meet WP:BIO standards. Mostly seems to be relying on inherited notability here. only ( talk) 03:36, 30 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Strong Keep why is there not a requirement for nominators of articles to do research... There are many many articles on Peter, whether or not his parents are famous he is written about allover for his lifestyle and appearances. in the New York Times, harpers Bazaar, People, Vogue on major network television..... He is an archetype to certain subcultures he is very notable... "Doesn't seem" since when are cases prosecuted on doesn't seem if you looked things up it wouldn't seem. Define and find out your case before you present it . Masterknighted ( talk) 03:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep I'm also somewhat puzzled about this repetitive use of the word "seems" in the nomination, as in "seems" not to meet standards, "mostly seems" to be relying on. When you nominate an article you need to have somewhat more than a general idea. But lets assume this is just a matter of style and carefully look at the article and its references. Peter Brant II is the main topic of many articles in major media, not in relation to just one event. Thus he clearly meets the WP:GNG and there is no case for deletion. Under the implied WP:NOTINHERITED rule, notability requires verifiable evidence and a person is not notable by Wikipedian standards, just because his family is famous. However, if the verifiable evidence of notability is there, he would still be notable, as is the case for Peter Brant II. A famous family doesn't rule out notability! gidonb ( talk) 19:19, 30 January 2016 (UTC) reply

KeepI'll never fully understand the justification behind some articles staying and others being deleted. Especially when there is more than enough materials to write a complete unbiased piece. In this regards, the page has been published since 2014, there is opportunity for improvement, should be labeled accordingly. Toddman4 ( talk) 21:31, 30 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Strong Keep the subject of this article is in-deed notable. He has had several notable publications write about him and is well known in social circles on New York. Jimgerbig ( talk) 06:27, 31 January 2016 (UTC) reply

STRONG KEEP Peter Brant II is notable and the article should be allowed to remain. Deletionism is bad for humanity. Comprised ( talk) 06:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Comment Close as keep per WP:Snowball? gidonb ( talk) 14:34, 31 January 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.