Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Riehl

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. AFD closures are supposed to be based not on a mere a tally of votes, but rather on the analysis of the policy-based arguments put forth by those who have taken part in the discussion. In this case, I find that those who argue for keeping the article have not refuted the argument, put forth by those that are in favour of deletion, that the subject of the article has not received *significant* coverage in reliable sources. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:22, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Riehl[edit]

[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)

I'm not seeing WP:SIGCOV/WP:GNG. Some passing mentions, but nothing substantive that I can find. Marquardtika (talk) 03:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hmmm. This may well be worth evaluating. When I created this article in 2012, Riehl was a fairly prominent conservative commentator, and appeared to be on the rise. Biased pieces about him (which I didn't cite) weren't uncommon [1][2][3] and were some indication of the level of attention he was getting. It looks like he hasn't written anything at Breitbart.com since 10 Feb 2018 [4], but if this does seem proper for deletion, that's one article he would merit a mention at.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:56, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:09, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:41, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep On top of the sources linked on the page, here is one from the Washington Post: [5] I'm not sure whether or not he writes for Breitbart anymore is relevant. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 10:41, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:35, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Searches online find zero articles about him on Google news. The only reliable sources quote from not about the subject. I've been quoted several times in the Business Review, and my picture was once in the Daily News, but that does not make me notable per se. This guy is a "entrepreneur", which is sadly these days run of the mill. That he got sick and it was on some minor Internet site is not even news. I remind the gentle reader that we are not a free webhosting company for anyone hawking their opinions online. That he tweeted once "Obama sux" (sic.), which was quoted widely, does not make him a "writer" - anybody could have blogged as I did - in the past. Bearian (talk) 14:08, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete coverage is not significant enough for a living person. - Scarpy (talk) 22:00, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep per User:AlessandroTiandelli333's sufficient reasoning.desmay (talk) 03:08, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Split between votes
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Redditaddict6 9 13:46, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The significance of results and coverage shows that he easily passes WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. Rzvas (talk) 04:40, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked at all the sources and they're all opinion columns or trivial mentions. Not a single indepth reliable source piece about him. I have no idea what "the significance of results and coverage" above refers to, all the coverage is insignificant. --GRuban (talk) 14:02, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources that are reliable are all passing mentions. Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR, since there's no evidence that anything he blogged was ever notable. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 00:21, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"no evidence that anything he blogged was ever notable." Well I wouldn't go THAT far. Certainly he is more notable than that scurrilous Bearian character. But after 11 years and creating over 600 articles (none ever deleted), I'm finally agreeing that one should probably be deleted. Sorry, Dan!!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:35, 7 September 2018 (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.