Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cecil Edwards

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 keep. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 04:53, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cecil Edwards[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 notable under WP:GNG and WP:BLP, possibly unreliable as well, revolves around a single news story. dibbydib Ping me!^💬/_✏ 02:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. dibbydib Ping me!^💬/_✏ 02:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:17, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:39, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 02:52, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Textbook WP:BLP1E. Made the news once, low profile outside of the incident, and not a significant incident. Hog Farm (talk) 02:18, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am going to see if there I can locate RS for the Democracy Manifest Guy. Lightburst (talk) 02:52, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article was renamed Democracy Manifest video. I think we have WP:BARE for a notable video. I will keep working on this. @Hog Farm: I will appreciate your opinion of the name change and article improvement if you have a chance. Lightburst (talk) 03:15, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sadly there is enough coverage ( 2016 example, 2019 example, another 2019 example, the Guardian mentions it in 2019, 2020 example, in additon to 1990, presumably) over time to establish the notability of this totally dumb article.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:22, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough coverage in reliable sources has now been found to establish notability. Dream Focus 03:32, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With the focus of the newly-written article on the video, this seems to just barely indicate lasting coverage. I still hold that any article about Mr. Edwards would be a notability failure. Hog Farm (talk) 03:45, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the all-time great viral specimens, and not overly dangerous to encounter, unless you are a succulent Chinese meal. As supported by The Guardian and elsewhere. Significant and lasting coverage in multiple reliable sources. -- GreenC 04:30, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Snow Keep Meets WP:GNG. The subject is ~~despicable~~ ~~opprobrious~~ after all these years, amusing; the video is notable; but WP:I don't like it is no ground to delete. May not even be showing a real arrest, per the sources. But the video is an Australian meme. Article has been renamed, moved, repurposed; its subject matter turned 180 degrees; and vastly improved (and now better cited) since its nomination with multiple WP:RS. Not the article it was at the time of the nomination. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:41, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:HEY example. Expanded and improved article now clearly shows the subject passes WP:GNG. — Hunter Kahn 01:23, 23 March 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.