Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elijah Daniel (2nd nomination)

Elijah Daniel

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Elijah Daniel
• Articles for deletion/Elijah Daniel (2nd nomination)

Elijah Daniel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Declined prod SpinningSpark 12:50, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

• Delete - Wasn't a notable figure in 2012, still isn't a notable figure in 2017. His acts are barely middle-of-the-paper filler - remember WP:NOTPAPER. Merge the prank show stuff back into CollegeHumor and bin the rest. GR _{(Contact me) (See my edits)} 16:23, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
• Delete - This guys fails to be notable enough to have an article. The article is full of unreliable sources (social media, random blogs), manipulated sources, subjetivity (WP:NEUTRAL, and remember WP:NOTPAPER. I also see a clear case of WP:OWNERSHIP by user Sagecandor. The only notable thing about him is the Trump book he wrote and most of the reliable sources talk about it NOT about him as a "public figure". Anonpediann (talk) 14:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• User makes false assertions with zero evidence to back up their claims. Sagecandor (talk) 14:47, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I just try to change things that shouldn't be on the article per WP:PAPER and you keep adding them. Told you social media and YT aren't reliable sources except in very exceptional cases and you put them again. Told you making a petition doesn't starts anyone's career, you reverted my changes. You don't let anyone change anything. Plus you try to hard to make him notable by adding more ad more content that makes no sense (Reception page is an example of it). Anonpediann (talk) 14:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure why, in the middle of a deletion debate, you're actually complaining about expansion and improvements to the article. The article relies primarily on secondary sources now. We can use sources by the subject in the article about the subject himself. Sagecandor (talk) 14:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:31, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:31, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

• Keep. Notable figure. Significant coverage at Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Notable author. Sagecandor (talk) 19:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@Sagecandor: Notable figure? Are you kidding? Tell me something he's done as notable that deserves to be covered on Wikipedia. Anonpediann (talk) 21:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

No I'm not kidding. I wrote this with text based communications that does not allow for sarcasm. I try to be truthful in all my communications. Please let's all use better tone in our communications here. Thank you !!! Sagecandor (talk) 21:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@Sagecandor: "In 2013 Elijah created an official White House petition as a prank, in order to make Miley Cyrus's "Party in the U.S.A." the national anthem of the United States". This says it all. Anonpediann (talk) 21:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

So anyone who ever tries to create a petition as a prank is instantly not notable in your opinion? Even if that was from an incident from four (4) years ago? And even if later, four (4) years later, they've done other later things that makes them more notable, since then? Sagecandor (talk) 21:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@Sagecandor: Making a prank is NOT NOTABLE. Not to make into a Wikipedia article. Anonpediann (talk) 21:57, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry but his career spans more than one single prank, as noted at [1]. Sagecandor (talk) 14:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• Delete the article is egregiously full of trivia. No notability. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps, but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. The current state of the article is not ideally related to the notability of the subject of the article. Sagecandor (talk) 22:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Just just said above that is a "notable figure" and now you say that he doesn't need to be too notable to get an article? I can't see your point. Naming WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP to get a point when it has nothing to do with the post you just answered seems like you are trying to hard to null people's opinions to give more validation to yours. Not cool. Anonpediann (talk) 10:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Can't even understand this comment. The language used by the user is confusing in their posts. Sagecandor (talk) 14:03, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: At notable awards, Shorty Awards, in category, Best Comedian, result was "Winner" after being nominated [2] and making it to be a finalist [3]. See link from official website: Winner in Comedy. Sagecandor (talk) 01:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
• Please note article has been expanded and improved: I've worked on research and expansion and improvement for this article. State before: link here. State after: (Improved Version after research and expansion process). Please keep this in mind when deciding the eventual fate of the article's existence on Wikipedia, thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 04:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 04:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 04:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 04:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 04:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 04:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 04:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 04:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 04:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 04:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 04:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 04:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 04:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 04:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• Keep - Some of you really seem to hate this guy, but the widespread coverage of his book asserts enough notability for an article. It really doesn't matter if he's an attention whore or "just another attention seeking internet persona", there are a lot of respectable publications talking about him.— TAnthony^Talk 04:33, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
• Keep per GNG. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
• Keep because "Declined prod" is not a reason for deletion, and looking at the article currently at Elijah Daniel, I don't see any myself. — fourthords | =Λ= | 14:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)