Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Will Hatton

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:46, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will Hatton

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Travel blogger not meeting WP:BIO likely written by a WP:COI editor. AntiVan (talk) 02:39, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am the editor that originally created this article as well as made a request to add additional information to it. I'd like to share why I think this article should not be deleted.

When I first created the article, it was quite basic and lacked a lot of information. This was due to my own ignorance as a rookie Wikipedia editor. I should have created it in the Sandbox and it reviewed first, rather than let it remain published incomplete. For this reason, I put in a request to have the article updated with some extra content, in doing so hopefully addressing some of the initial concerns raised. This request was denied though.

I believe that the article with the additional content I submitted is much better and worthy of remaining. I say this because I based the format quite a bit on other biographies in this space (travel blogging), like those for Matthew Kepnes, Laurence Noah, Johnny Ward, and Drew Binsky. These articles use sources that are no more credible than the ones in Mr. Hatton's article and, in some cases, are even more dubious. Johnny Ward's page is riddled with questionable citations for example.

I don't want to turn this into a situation where I say "they have one so I want one too." This would be childish. But I do want to say that I believe the article has at least met the standards set by the other biographies in this space. I'd also like to go on the record by saying that I did everything I could to write the article with the utmost neutrality and only made substantiated claims.

What are everyone else's thoughts on the issue?

Roamingralph (talk) 07:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Roamingralph:, It would help if you could provide some examples of wp:reliable sources providing sustained coverage on this subject, and/or a large and non-trivial body of work about the subject by reliable third parties. Comments about the quality (or lack thereof) of other articles in relation to this article is generally considered an argument to avoid. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 23:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete blogger doesn't cut the WP:GNG mustard. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:47, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, fails GNG. Spleodrach (talk) 06:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article's topic falls below notability guideline. Kaspadoo (talk) 11:28, 3 May 2021 (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.