Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Harwood

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. But willing to revisit if better sourcing found Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:04, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Harwood[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a YouTuber, whose notability claims are referenced 8/10 to garbage sources, like blogs and YouTube videos and Twitter tweets, that cannot carry notability in a Wikipedia article. Of the two sources left that are actually reliable ones, one is a genuinely strong and substantive source while the other is a short blurb that, when translated, is really just a brief summary of the other rather than a standalone piece of new reporting -- so they count as one reliable source combined toward WP:GNG, not two. But passing GNG requires multiple reliable sources, and nothing claimed in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass GNG. Bearcat (talk) 05:35, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Enigma^msg 08:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:48, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:48, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I chopped the bad references, and there are just a few decent refs left. There is an article in Marie Claire that covers Harwood, so there seems to be other coverage. I would bet there will be more, so weak keep. FWIW, when cleaning up the references I noticed they had been oddly but competently formatted, which made me think this was a professional editing job.104.163.139.33 (talk) 03:29, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:01, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:24, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:02, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete sourcing on page is inadequate and I cannot find reliable sources to support notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:48, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 15:50, 12 June 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.