Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harley Fresh

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. Tone 12:07, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harley Fresh[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)

Not clear he meets WP:GNG or WP:BASIC or WP:ENT or WP:CREATIVE; only one award listed, and that's probably not currently enough; happy days, Lindsay^Hello 11:19, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. happy days, Lindsay^Hello 11:19, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. happy days, Lindsay^Hello 11:19, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yet CouRageJD gets his own page. Blueshocker (talk) 08:56, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yet, WP:OTHER; happy days, Lindsay^Hello 06:18, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 03:30, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 03:30, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 03:30, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Teraplane (talk) 00:46, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:26, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources given for the article do not indicate that Mr Campbell meets our notability guidelines. Nick-D (talk) 07:48, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: ~~So far, all deletion arguments are based upon sources in the article. However,~~ (Regarding the !vote above), per WP:NEXIST, notability is not based upon the state of sourcing in an article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:01, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG. The argument WP:EXIST used to relist is not valid IMHO because as per WP:AADD NEXIST is only relevant if you show hard evidence that notability-supporting sources definitely do exist to repair the article with, and is not a compelling argument if all you do is make idle guesses about what might be possible. --Dom from Paris (talk) 09:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Northamerica1000, forgive me if i misunderstand, but i seem to disagree with what you say as you relist: In my argument for deletion, the nomination, i made no reference to the sources, the entirety of the argument is that there is nothing in the text of the article which implies that the subject meets WP:GNG or the other guidelines i mention. In other words, WP:NEXIST isn't relevant, because the subject isn't notable, regardless of the sources in the article (or elsewhere). Please explain, if i have not understood what you mean, or possibly rethink your comment? Thanks; happy days, Lindsay^Hello 15:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LindsayH: You stated that it's "not clear" whether or not the subject meets notability guidelines, which could imply that it's not clear from the sources presented in the article, versus stating directly that source searches did not provide additional evidence. It appears that you based the rest of the nomination upon the "listed" award, that being the award listed in the "Awards and nominations" section of the article, stating that it's "probably not currently enough". Overall, basing notability upon a "not clear" and "probably" basis is not the same as directly stating that the subject is non-notable, you did not indicate whether or not you performed additional source searches, and it's not clear if you searched to see if the subject has received other awards or not, simply potentially basing the nomination upon what is in the article's awards section.

You stated in your comment above that there is nothing "in the text" of the article suggesting notability, but General notability (WP:GNG) is not based upon suggestions from prose within Wikipedia articles. Notability based upon WP:SNGs can be potentially ascertained from content in articles, such as, for example, if a person has competed in the Olympics (WP:NOLY), which provides presumed notability. Rather, General notability is based upon whether or not the subject has received significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. Since you have further explained your stance, I have struck part of my relisting comment and added in new information in parentheses (diff). However, one delete !vote is soleley based upon sourcing the article, so I have not struck it all. Regarding the delete !vote following the relist, I cited a Wikipedia guideline page, whereas WP:AADD is part of an WP:ESSAY, and essays are not guidelines, having not been thoroughly vetted by the community. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:02, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. I understand more clearly now what you were saying. Still think he's not notable, but at least i don't feel we're singing off different pages now; happy days, Lindsay^Hello 06:08, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG with coverage in Detroit Metro Times, Dot Esports, Marca, Tennis Australia. - Brojam (talk) 20:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Those four sources are, in order, a passing mention, significant but niche press, minor, and a passing mention. Altogether, not significant coverage though clearly on the trajectory. Current version of the article is refbombed with nothing to salvage. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 04:30, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Czar, Dom from Paris, and Nick-D, I agree that the sources in article fail to validate the subject matter's notability. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 01:30, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There isn't enough WP:SIGCOV on the subject. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:12, 19 August 2020 (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.