Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darien Joseph

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. WP:SNOW, WP:IAR. Nobody has disagreed the article should be deleted. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 06:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Darien Joseph[edit]

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

As a parent, I do not want 16-year olds creating autobiographies on Wikipedia (see WP:YOUNG). This is for their own good. I've already speedy deleted this twice as Darien Joseph (Personality) and salted; before I go any further, I would like the community to confirm this the correct thing to do. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BASIC for lacking "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources" - there's just one, minor secondary source of a local paper's six-sentence article about Joseph starting a fashion blog a few months ago. The "best music video" award from the Port Lincoln City Band does not seem to be a significant award. I can't find any other RS coverage online, as either "Darien Joseph" or "Darien Hage". --McGeddon (talk) 10:02, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG guidelines in almost every respect; note no WP:DEPTH or WP:PERSISTENCE. _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per both of the above and WP:TOOSOON. Good luck, kid. OnionRing (talk) 10:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG guidelines; searches for RS to back up the notability found nothing (although I'm not an oracle, so I'm as imperfect as the next person!) - SchroCat (talk) 10:54, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 11:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 11:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 11:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per all of the above. Maybe down the road they will meet WP:GNG, but not just yet. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:18, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. The current content of the article may even be a hoax. The claimed 100,000 followers at Jo-Jo's talk page is questionable at best. I was unable to locate any Youtube channel, just a website for a Youtube partner company that advertises none of their client names. It's not even clear they have clients. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above; WP:TOOSOON. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 23:15, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What we have is 100% fluff except a local story from a paper in a city with 14,000 people about how a 16-year-old has created a fashion blog. In my county of 800,000 plus people the local paper runs for much of the year articles on successful high school seniors, some of which will mention not just what they plan to do but what they have done. None of them are ever close to being good grounds for someone passing GNG and this is such a case as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:29, 9 July 2016 (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.