Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Troy Sparks

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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Troy Sparks

I don't see much claim to notability here, having collaborated with well-known people could be it but that seems awfully vague (and unreferenced) here. --fvw * 02:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He CLAIMS to have collaborated... The article is a vanity piece with that unmistakable high-school-can't-get-a-date aroma; the guy's blog is...well, a blog. His tenure at RealGM? Even if it were true (I can't find confirmation) it wouldn't establish notability. But check it out: I can only find him as a member, someone who talks sports among thousands of others. More specifically: this suggests he may not have been "the face" of the site (and I wonder about that metaphor in the first place). Drmies (talk) 03:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like a vanity page to me, just a high school student that has some kind teachers. Nothing to indicate notability. Matty (talk) 05:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article has been around since November of 2007. Obviously there's some credibility in some way or another if it's been up for over a year and hasn't been deleted due to lack of sources. User:Jbeck2k2 ((User talk:Jbeck2k2)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbeck2k (talk • contribs) 12:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Jbeck, maybe the article was given enough time to grow stronger, or maybe no one ran into it. Either way, you've had a year to add sources that establish the subject's notability. That it hasn't been deleted yet does not mean it's notable. For instance, I'd like to see proof that Sparks was so important on RealGM, when there doesn't seem to be a single mention on that website that proves that rather bold statement. Drmies (talk) 16:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep as per Jbeck2k2. travb (talk) 18:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which argument of Jbeck's precisely do you agree with? Or, what did Jbeck say that makes the article in line with WP:N, even though the article doesn't have a single reference? "It hasn't been deleted yet"? Drmies (talk) 22:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That certainly gave me a chuckle. Not just a keep, but a strong keep based on... um.... well... because the article was never deleted yet so why should it be now? Just once in a while, User:Inclusionist, could you pretend to have a legitimate reason to keep something? Trusilver 08:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Due to a complete failure to assert notability. Trusilver 08:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability not asserted. Has written for barely notable website. Needs significant coverage in wp:reliable sources to merit inclusion. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 01:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails the general notability guideline and the specific guideline for people. No reliable sources have covered the individual or his work, according to the article he is best known for his work with RealGM yet a search of "Troy Sparks" AND "RealGM" gives seven results, none of which could be used in the article. Apart from notability issues, without reliable sources, even basic statements like "He is best known for his tenure at RealGM.com." cannot be verfified. The fact that the article has been around for a while isn't a reason to keep it when the subject fails to meet Wikipedia's current criteria for inclusion. Guest9999 (talk) 09:56, 14 January 2009 (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.