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.
Trying very hard to establish
WP:GNG, but cannot find SIGCOV in multiple reliable secondary sources. Might be because it's hard to pick up sources because of the name. Either way, the sources already provided and found through WP:BEFORE are indicative of trivial mentions across various sources.
nearlyevil66511:56, 23 March 2022 (UTC)reply
I voted weak keep last time and his notability can't have fallen as notability is not temporary. So, is it more than a weak keep this time? As before, his pretty much unGoogleable name makes it very hard to say. The RS sources in the article do show more than mere passing mentions but it is mostly a paragraph here and a paragraph there, not a complete dedicated article in a solid RS source. Taken together, I think it is over the line for significant coverage but only just so I guess it is another weak keep from me. --
DanielRigal (
talk)
18:58, 23 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Half a rusty bonus point for Caleb Maupin moaning about him in his latest screed and some other losers pushing a conspiracy theory that he is in the CIA but I guess that sort of nonsense is par for the course these days.
I would argue it's likely not, but not decidedly not a
WP:RS there is that from the archives, but there's also this:
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 239#Reliability/quality of various websites where the albeit short discussion seems to in the way of: there's a lower bar for
WP:RS for entertainment. I definitely would not use it as a source for contentious information and would defer to a better source if available, but it does seem like it's better than no source for the given context. Usage numbers are a horrible way of arguing for a source's reliability, but it does seem like there is some acceptance of popdust with being in just under 200 citations as of right now.
TartarTorte12:04, 31 March 2022 (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.
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.
Trying very hard to establish
WP:GNG, but cannot find SIGCOV in multiple reliable secondary sources. Might be because it's hard to pick up sources because of the name. Either way, the sources already provided and found through WP:BEFORE are indicative of trivial mentions across various sources.
nearlyevil66511:56, 23 March 2022 (UTC)reply
I voted weak keep last time and his notability can't have fallen as notability is not temporary. So, is it more than a weak keep this time? As before, his pretty much unGoogleable name makes it very hard to say. The RS sources in the article do show more than mere passing mentions but it is mostly a paragraph here and a paragraph there, not a complete dedicated article in a solid RS source. Taken together, I think it is over the line for significant coverage but only just so I guess it is another weak keep from me. --
DanielRigal (
talk)
18:58, 23 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Half a rusty bonus point for Caleb Maupin moaning about him in his latest screed and some other losers pushing a conspiracy theory that he is in the CIA but I guess that sort of nonsense is par for the course these days.
I would argue it's likely not, but not decidedly not a
WP:RS there is that from the archives, but there's also this:
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 239#Reliability/quality of various websites where the albeit short discussion seems to in the way of: there's a lower bar for
WP:RS for entertainment. I definitely would not use it as a source for contentious information and would defer to a better source if available, but it does seem like it's better than no source for the given context. Usage numbers are a horrible way of arguing for a source's reliability, but it does seem like there is some acceptance of popdust with being in just under 200 citations as of right now.
TartarTorte12:04, 31 March 2022 (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.