Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Quall

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. As far as I can tell, no evidence was advanced during this discussion to establish the subject's notability. Thus, I see that consensus is to delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James Quall

This article lacks notability as well as many other issues. Speedy declined so it has been taken to AFD.

James Quall may not be the most famous celebrity, but he is popular enough to have is own page -User:IDALGHAMTFPD
- James Quall may be popular in your eyes, but to the rest of the world he is a nobody.keystoneridin! (talk) 04:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - nobody ok go say that 2 all 891 of his friends on Facebook --IDALGHAMTFPD (talk) 04:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)-[reply]
  - Stop this line of arguments at an AfD. If you'd bothered to do WP:BEFORE you'd see the coverage he's received, albeit trivial. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 05:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think that he may just BARELY meet the notability guidelines. Maybe it's a bit iffy, so I will give the benefit of the doubt. As far as number of people on Facebook that are his friends, that should not be used as a measure, as there are people that have articles on Wiki that have less than 891 friends (or fans) on FB. Pax85 (talk) 05:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone can provide proper evidence of notability. Facebook, Myspace (or any personal websites maintained by the subject) are not evidence of notability - I'm sure there are plenty obscure teenage girls out there with even more facebook friends than this subject has, but this does not mean we need to have a page about them here. Bonfire of vanities (talk) 06:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- and I should add: the fact that this Wikipedia entry is showing up on page one of a google search is a pretty bad sign... Bonfire of vanities (talk) 06:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. I have no idea what you're trying to imply re: page one of a Google search, but Wikipedia routinely shows up on page one of Google searches for various topics. I.e. the second hit on Barack Obama, after his personal website, is his Wikipedia page. 69.253.207.9 (talk) 02:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of the number of facebook friends, an evidence-free assertion that he "may just BARELY meet the notability guidelines" nor where Wikipedia appears in web search results for the subject's name, are anything like valid arguments for keeping or deletion, so let's try to get this discussion on track by looking for sources. Any notable contemporary American entertainer would be expected to attract some coverage in sources indexed by Google News, and such a search finds 14 sources mentioning the subject:

This article published in The New York Times and The Kansas City Star has 42 words about the subject including, "an aspiring comedian who specializes in inadvertently terrible voice impressions".
This article published by a local branch of The Onion has 67 words including, "laughably awful comedian", and, "too much pride for it to have been deliberately bad".
Another local Onion chapter has 37 words starting with, "inept impressionist James Quall".
This syndicated report published in The News & Observer, The Kansas City Star, the Detroit Free Press and the Colorado Daily has 16 words in which they manage to include, "a no-talent celebrity impersonator".
This article in The Denver Post and Multichannel News is simply a name check.
The sum total of the subject's coverage in this article in 77 Square is, "and awful resident celebrity impersonator, James Quall, [is] from Wisconsin, a fact that instilled pride and embarrassment in the same instant".
Another local Onion publication gives a name check.
as does this student publication.

Does all this amount to enough notability to keep the article? Perhaps the amount of coverage could just about be said to be enough, but the fact that it is universally negative means that if we are to base the article on the reliable sources that I could find it would violate neutrality policy, which is especially important when dealing with articles about living people. Unless anyone can find any balancing positive coverage I think I'll go with a delete. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:12, 4 August 2009 (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.