Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Lyons (2nd nomination)


 * 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.

Adam Lyons
The result was Weak Keep - arguments based in policy and fact (i.e., that it satisfies the requirement for independent, reliable sources) are stronger than disliking the guy (as justified as that may be.)  One could argue this is actually a no consensus, but the outcome would be the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilyD (talk • contribs) 15:02, 2 July 2012 AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Doesn't appear to be notable. Black Kite (talk) 18:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Appears to have just enough suitable coverage. Many of the other references are dead links or go to home pages which have nothing on this. North8000 (talk) 21:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Half of the references are now dead links. Of those remaining, the Daily Mirror piece looks promotional (it suggests signing up for crash courses via his website) and the CTV piece also looks promotional (the blurb beside the video claims he "describes no-fail ways to catch your dream date" and mentions that he is to host a "pickup skills boot camp" that weekend). Delete as non-notable. Autarch (talk) 21:47, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 23:28, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Reluctant keep. Plenty of references. CTV is a legitimate television network, and its news staff do silly human interest stories like those of any other network. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Overaged teen nerd who, he has told numerous interviews, now has sex with a different woman every night ("except Sunday" -- this is England, remember?), apparently by inviting them up to see his Star Wars collection or play D&D. Most if not all sources are either dead or not independent (interviews etc.). EEng (talk) 06:10, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. There are more than enough acceptable (CTV, The Independent, and presumably Channel 4 [can't be bothered to watch the video]) or semi-acceptable (The Mirror) live references. I don't understand your objection to interviews. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Because interviews by convention let the subject speak for himself with little or no independent verification of what the subject says (except where this is clearly indicated in the published text) they are not independent of the subject and so not usable for notability. EEng (talk) 06:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You need to read WP:INDEPENDENT. Independent news organizations, as opposed to say the subject's own website, consider the person notable enough to interview. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.