Draft talk:Dan Price

In regards to the protected page

I have reached out to EdJohnston, who originally protected the page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EdJohnston#Dan_Price_page) He does not seem to object and says following the AFC process is a good idea and that it is a good idea to continue addressing the reviewer objections. As such, not focus on the protected status and work on improving the content of the article.

I have also created a Redirects for Discussion about this page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_April_2#Dan_Price) as the reviewer suggested.

Since the review originally rejected the article based on notability I have added a controversy section and made other minor updates.

I would also like to address the concern that "This draft is essentially the same as the deleted article." The deleted article had reported COI and at the time the Price was considered WP:BIO1E. This draft was written from a more neutral point of view and has sources for every statement. Granted, EdJohnston did note that this draft is a bit heavy on controversy. If that is too much we can reduce the controversy but it is valuable to note issues surrounding public figures. Additionally, Dan Price has had independent and reliable articles discuss him every year since 2015. That shows that he is more than WP:BIO1E. Though the article has content related to that one event it also contains info about several other events. Thanks RayScript (talk) 02:28, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the current draft there is nothing that distinguishes him as being individually notable. It raises a book deal in 2015 but there is no evidence that it was published or is a significant work. It raises a lawsuit with his brother and an accusation by his ex-wife about spousal abuse. None of which are really notable achievements in their own rights. At this stage I think it should remain as a redirect. Dan arndt (talk) 05:36, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:GNG "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article." Here are WP:THREE sources that meet GNG (and happen to be cited in article).

1. NYT article covering Price's initial minimum wage increase.

2. Bloomberg article that came out eight months later describing issues around Price.

3. CBS News article four years later covering Price giving a different minimum wage increase.

These articles are cover three separate events and show continued coverage of Price in the media. Though Gravity Payments is covered in these articles, it is mentioned much less often than Price himself. It would be valuable to have an article so users can find out encyclopedia information about this person who continues to be written about RayScript (talk) 19:19, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]