Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shawn Sanbrooke

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:49, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Sanbrooke

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

Clearly self-written; included details about own garden shed. Now local newspapers removed, no longer verifiable, that is, unsourced in large parts. –Sb 2001 11:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I previously tidied up this page and massively reduced the amount of redundant detail or stuff that seemed to be self written. Or exaggerations that he is a well known charity figure and businessman because he made a donation once and ran a town hall scare zone for a bit (all unsourced obviously). I don't see what can be learnt from this page to be honest.Woombamillio (talk) 12:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep local news sources are reliable sources and should not be removed just because they are local. I've restored them and if you remove them again will ask for admin intervention. There is no evidence it is self written and the shed details are part of his youtube content and well known. Atlantic306 (talk) 16:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic306: local newspapers are tabloids, which are not considered reliable. If you have a problem with me removing them, take it to WP:RSN. Otherwise, ask for intervention, if you like. Your threatening of it is enough for me to ask for action against you, so it is not going to get anywhere. His garden shed has no place on a Wikipedia article; I have removed that again. I have some strong concerns about your tone in these discussions. I shall review some of your other contributions to AfDs, talk pages, etc. –Sb 2001 17:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly do not consider local newspapers to count as tabloids in the sense of being sensationalist and scandal mongering. Regarding my tone I apologise as I thought you were removing them without a reason. Atlantic306 (talk) 17:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic306 and Sb2001: You're both wrong and behaving terribly. On the one hand, local media is not inherently unreliable, and simply being local is not sufficient reason to remove a source; there need to be other indications that a particular source isn't reliable. On the other hand, removing a source on that pretext once, though wrong, is not sufficient reason to threaten escalation. Get a grip, both of you, BRD, and go beyond. —swpb^{T go beyond} 15:54, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I dont see anything of note that makes Sanbrooke any more notable then others on youtube, if his channel is notable then that should have an article, as a subject he is a bit like a BLP1E MilborneOne (talk) 17:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 06:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:17, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable youtuber. Article cites only local coverage. Sandstein 09:47, 14 February 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.