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

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 keep. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:15, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Hardcastle

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

[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)

Fails WP:GNG - while Dmartin969 makes a point on the article talk page that the subject meets criteria such as WP:ANYBIO and WP:NAUTHOR, those guidelines say that he is likely to be notable, not that he automatically is. GNG is the main criteria any subject on Wikipedia should pass, and there is barely any significant coverage for him to meet it. SK2242 (talk) 03:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 03:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 03:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 03:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 03:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 03:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject of the article has received a significant amount of coverage. Though not all of it is linked from the article, notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article per WP:NEXIST. I think WP:NTEMP also applies in this scenario, as even though(especially mainstream) media coverage has faded as buzz around the book did, that doesn't change the fact that it was at one point the best selling book in the UK –DMartin 04:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC) (In the interest of full discolosure, I was the primary author of this article)[reply]

I would also like to riterate what I said on the article's talk page:

"[The article is notable] based on the following cirteria:

From WP:anybio(1), "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honour": Times #1 bestseller

From WP:author(3), "The person has created...a significant or well-known work or collective body of work": Wrote a book that reached was a #1 best seller, AND has created a YouTube channel that has over 2.5 million subscirbers and 1 billion views.

From WP:ENTERTAINER(2), "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.": Major YouTube fanbase, which could be considered a cult following.

I feel like based on meeting multiple crieteria present in WP:BIO this individual clearly meets the notability requiremnts."

–DMartin 04:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC) (In the interest of full discolosure, I was the primary author of this article)[reply]

I did a BEFORE search before nominating and found nothing further in significant coverage for it to meet GNG. NTEMP only applies if the subject has met GNG in the first place. SK2242 (talk) 04:23, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Once again those guidelines say the subject is only presumed notable if they pass it. This still fails GNG. SK2242 (talk) 04:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing notable when conducting a WP:BEFORE search. As pointed out, SNG's can be used to presume notability and create articles. That presumed notability can be rebutted. The evidence is what it is. Being a #1 best seller author, while significant, is not notable in an of itself according to the criteria. Creating a YouTube channel that has 2.5 million subscribers, while of import, does not equal notability as per the criteria. It must pass criteria laid out in WP:N. That is the only criteria relevant at AfD's. This does not. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 21:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per analysis done by DMartin. Article is good enough to pass WP:GNG and WP:NEXIST. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- What analysis has been done to meet GNG or N? Dmartin969 only brought up secondary guidelines such as ENT and NAUTHOR when this still fails GNG and N. SK2242 (talk) 17:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - SK2242, I don't think I have to explain that. Dmartin's analysis is clear that the subject is a case of WP:NEXIST. I have explained enough. And I won't reply anymore. My keep stands. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 03:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 23:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with a little bit of "Why are we here?". Would recommend rereading GNG to clarify that guideline's relationship with the presumption of notability itself. Notability guidelines work alongside, not against, one another. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 23:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would request that everyone make themselves aware of the definition of presume according to Wikipedia. It does not guarantee anything and only can be used in article creation. Facts are all that matter in an AfD, not presumptions. --ARose Wolf 16:36, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Dmartin969's analysis. Maxorca (talk) 04:28, 24 January 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.