Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Todd Huston
- 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 delete. The only claim to notability does not offer any specifics. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- Todd Huston (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)
WP:COI editor with loads of peacock and promotional languange. No indication of notable. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:21, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:25, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:25, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:25, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- comment he sounds like he may well be notable, but that REFBOMBing ... does anyone feel up to extracting the actual RSes? - David Gerard (talk) 09:19, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- Comment After one click on Google books, I can't say that those Todd Huston's are the one in the article, but I can state that the nomination's assertion that there is "no indication of notable" can be falsified. Unscintillating (talk) 02:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- That comment doesn't seem to make sense - you can't put forward a claim that there might be hypothetical sources to swing keeping a BLP, it needs the RSes right there - David Gerard (talk) 12:03, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- If those are not Todd Huston WP:RS, then why did the nomination not mention that fact in the nomination? For that matter, where is the report of the other WP:BEFORE D1 searches? Is this a special case that doesn't need WP:BEFORE D1? Is so, why? Unscintillating (talk) 14:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- That comment doesn't make sense either. Look, a BLP needs the solid references right there in the article - even a BLP of an apparently-notable article can't be allowed to exist without them (read WP:BLP). If you want to convince others of his notability, please list the RSes you consider constitute evidence of notability - David Gerard (talk) 16:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- Are you claiming that it is my job to do WP:BEFORE D1? Show me where that is what WP:BEFORE says. Unscintillating (talk) 16:57, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- I mean, you don't have to supply anything to back your claim of notability. Right now you're claiming that convincing sources exist and doing anything other than saying what they are. Feel free to keep doing that, and we'll feel free to keep thinking this is a "delete" - David Gerard (talk) 17:00, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- No, your statement is not accurately reflecting what I have said. Unscintillating (talk) 17:42, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- Unscintillating, your own statements are not accurately reflecting what you have said - "aye, there's the rub;" (The Bard) Steve Quinn (talk) 23:14, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- No, your statement is not accurately reflecting what I have said. Unscintillating (talk) 17:42, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- I mean, you don't have to supply anything to back your claim of notability. Right now you're claiming that convincing sources exist and doing anything other than saying what they are. Feel free to keep doing that, and we'll feel free to keep thinking this is a "delete" - David Gerard (talk) 17:00, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- Are you claiming that it is my job to do WP:BEFORE D1? Show me where that is what WP:BEFORE says. Unscintillating (talk) 16:57, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- That comment doesn't make sense either. Look, a BLP needs the solid references right there in the article - even a BLP of an apparently-notable article can't be allowed to exist without them (read WP:BLP). If you want to convince others of his notability, please list the RSes you consider constitute evidence of notability - David Gerard (talk) 16:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- If those are not Todd Huston WP:RS, then why did the nomination not mention that fact in the nomination? For that matter, where is the report of the other WP:BEFORE D1 searches? Is this a special case that doesn't need WP:BEFORE D1? Is so, why? Unscintillating (talk) 14:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- That comment doesn't seem to make sense - you can't put forward a claim that there might be hypothetical sources to swing keeping a BLP, it needs the RSes right there - David Gerard (talk) 12:03, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete on the lack of evidence for notability proffered so far, quite apart from this being part of a blatant spam cluster - David Gerard (talk) 17:01, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete puffy article on a non-notable mountain climber.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as I also concur, this was deleted in 2010 as G12, and although I know for sure I've seen this elsewhere as an article, I'm not entirely sure; regardless, the entire article is beyond improvable as an advertisement, advertising every career information particle to the max certainly. SwisterTwister talk 05:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- So this is a WP:DEL14 argument? Unscintillating (talk) 09:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- 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.