Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gareth Arnold

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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:11, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gareth Arnold

[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 feel I can best start off what I suspect will be a slightly contentious AFD with a quote from the article itself:

"The articles created by Arnold cited unreliable and often irrelevant sources, but rather a similar thing or topic to give it added authority."

Frankly that says it all in the case of this article. It is absolutely riddled with impressive-looking citations that actually do not back up the claim in the text, most of which do not even mention the subject of the article (by any of his various names or pseudonyms). I spent some time this morning checking these and stripping them out, but it's become exhausting particularly as I've come to the conclusion the article merits deletion in any case.

Leaving aside the carnage of the citations, this individual basically has three (maybe four) claims to notability, which I'm going to address:

Creator of British Furst. This has genuinely attracted a fair bit of press coverage, and could possibly be the subject of a standalone article, but Arnold does not get inherited notability from this, and most of the articles about BF do not actually mention him. Those that do, mention him briefly and in passing. The same goes for BFNN, which seems to be broadly the same thing.
The LID Bible / LAD Bible case. A parody Facebook account that attracted a bit of attention for being sued by the subject *might* just merit a mention on LADBible. Maybe you could make a case for a standalone page for LID Bible given the coverage, though I'd argue against it, but a standalone page for the creator? Nope.
And then there's his recent behaviour re Jared O'Mara and twitter. Clearly this is a recent event and we can see how it develops, but, while it will undoubtedly generate some stories that name Arnold, it seems unlikely to be enough to be more than a brief news story that might merit a mention on O'Mara's page, and is not sufficient to overcome WP:NOTNEWS or WP:BLP1E.

Even if it turns out that consensus is that those three items above are sufficient for Arnold to merit a standalone article, I'd make the case that this is one of those very rare situations where WP:TNT really might be called for. Hug^syrup 09:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:30, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:30, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:30, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The nominator comment on the sources checks out, looks like obvious self-publicity. Endymion.12 (talk) 09:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. A poorly sourced article and little objective evidence of noteworthiness Little Professor (talk) 11:22, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Definitely looks like self-promotion; he even had his Wikipedia page linked on his Twitter profile (although now removed). Ollie231213 (talk) 12:39, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear self-promotion, few sources.Manzarene (talk) 14:02, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT, and only per WP:TNT - subject meets WP:GNG.--Laun chba ller 14:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like a self-created article on a minor subject. Everything in this article can be covered by a small mention in already extant articles, or does not deserve to be covered at all. Ganesha811 (talk) 14:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this article has been linked to in the news media - [1] 128.243.2.60 (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Obvious self promotion Taewangkorea (talk) 10:26, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable blogger.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:47, 28 July 2019 (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.