Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darryl Jones (Pittsburgh): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 08:56, 14 May 2015

Darryl Jones (Pittsburgh)

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

Non-notable individual. Zackmann08 (talk) 05:19, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Please read AfD wikipedia policies, unsubstantiated, unexplained comments here like you gave aren't useful/counted. This forum is for a dialogue discussion, if you wish to nominate for AfD then be prepared to explain, substantiate for a dialogue discussion with editors who may disagree with you. I await the required explanation of this AfD, also it's not a vote of confidence that after months on the articles talk page & failed speedy deletion attempts you haven't once tried discussing your thoughts on the article's talk page. So why?^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 05:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of third-party coverage from various reputable news sources. --Non-Dropframe _talk 07:10, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; fails WP:GNG. Only article where he was the subject was standard announcement that the city had hired a new chief —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First thank you for the detailed explanation. However if that standard applies then there are ~~hundreds of~~ articles on wikipedia where the only article(s) are "standard announcements" of "new" albums, "new" shows, "new" premiers etc. I understand the valid desire for more and detailed sources but just because a subject doesn't have the well-paid publicity agents & pr firms of a Sony film or reality tv star doesn't mean its not a notable subject for an encyclopedia, reliable sources are a must but let's not allow Wikipedia to simply be a conduit of pr firms buying google hits & SEO and thus oh look it has RSs concerning that the subject is indeed notable for being notable and thus notable. Big-city, long serving Fire Chiefs and say corporate proxy services are very notable to our everyday lives, much more so then "encyclopedia" articles on for instance a Canadian kid named Justin with a multi-million publicity budget etc. There are very serious people in the world that know topics of who runs major city fire crews and who to call if you are conducting a vote on a hostile corporate takeover who really would question why encyclopedias devote so much time and resources to manufactured famous-for-being-famous items. In summary I look at quality of RSs over number/topic, too often RSs are simply bought like a jug of milk by those seeking notability, as an encyclopedia we can't let that be a deciding factor but just one of many.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 08:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 *'''Keep''' Plenty of third-party coverage from various reputable news sources. <font color="gray">--</font>[[User:Non-dropframe|<font color="Orange">Non-Dropframe</font>]] [[User talk:Non-dropframe|<font color="Green"><u><sub>talk</sub></u></font>]] 07:10, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 *'''Delete'''; fails [[WP:GNG]]. Only article where he was the subject was standard announcement  that the city had hired a new chief [[User:Wikimandia|<font color="#0066cc">—'''''Мандичка'''''</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Wikimandia|<font color="#6600cc">'''''YO'''''</font>]]</sup> 😜 08:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
-::First thank you for the detailed explanation.  However if that standard applies then there are hundreds of articles on wikipedia where the only article(s) are "standard announcements" of "new" albums, "new" shows, "new" premiers etc.  I understand the valid desire for more and detailed sources but just because a subject doesn't have the well-paid publicity agents & pr firms of a Sony film or reality tv star doesn't mean its not a notable subject for an encyclopedia, reliable sources are a must but let's not allow Wikipedia to simply be a conduit of pr firms buying google hits & SEO and thus oh look it has RSs concerning that the subject is indeed notable for being notable and thus notable.  Big-city, long serving Fire Chiefs and say corporate proxy services are very notable to our everyday lives, much more so then "encyclopedia" articles on for instance a Canadian kid named Justin with a multi-million publicity budget etc.  There are very serious people in the world that know topics of who runs major city fire crews and who to call if you are conducting a vote on a hostile corporate takeover who really would question why encyclopedias devote so much time and resources to manufactured famous-for-being-famous items.  In summary I look at quality of RSs over number/topic, too often RSs are simply bought like a jug of milk by those seeking notability, as an encyclopedia we can't let that be a deciding factor but just one of many.[[User:Marketdiamond|<font color="green"><sup style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;"> Market St.⧏ </sup><sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;"> ⧐ Diamond Way</sub></font>]] 08:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
+::First thank you for the detailed explanation.  However if that standard applies then there are <s>hundreds of</s> articles on wikipedia where the only article(s) are "standard announcements" of "new" albums, "new" shows, "new" premiers etc.  I understand the valid desire for more and detailed sources but just because a subject doesn't have the well-paid publicity agents & pr firms of a Sony film or reality tv star doesn't mean its not a notable subject for an encyclopedia, reliable sources are a must but let's not allow Wikipedia to simply be a conduit of pr firms buying google hits & SEO and thus oh look it has RSs concerning that the subject is indeed notable for being notable and thus notable.  Big-city, long serving Fire Chiefs and say corporate proxy services are very notable to our everyday lives, much more so then "encyclopedia" articles on for instance a Canadian kid named Justin with a multi-million publicity budget etc.  There are very serious people in the world that know topics of who runs major city fire crews and who to call if you are conducting a vote on a hostile corporate takeover who really would question why encyclopedias devote so much time and resources to manufactured famous-for-being-famous items.  In summary I look at quality of RSs over number/topic, too often RSs are simply bought like a jug of milk by those seeking notability, as an encyclopedia we can't let that be a deciding factor but just one of many.[[User:Marketdiamond|<font color="green"><sup style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;"> Market St.⧏ </sup><sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;"> ⧐ Diamond Way</sub></font>]] 08:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)