Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin Dixon


 * 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. J04n(talk page) 13:19, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Benjamin Dixon

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP of a podcaster and author, based entirely on primary sources without even one piece of reliable source coverage about him in media shown at all. As always, podcasters are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist -- they must be the subject of enough media coverage to verify that they pass WP:CREATIVE or WP:GNG. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 02:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - Google news comes up with Denver Post and Huffington Post articles about him at least (I haven't gone through the whole search results list), and the subject is quoted or cited by possibly hundreds of sources. This seems sufficient for me to accept that the subject is notable enough for an article, even if the current state of the article lacks these citations.  At the very least, The Ring of Fire network appears to be notable.  If the consensus of other wikipedians suggests that he's not worth his own article, merge it into Ring of Fire (radio program) along with the other names listed there, as my second choice.  Fieari (talk) 03:07, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Be careful of the HuffPo. Some of their work is usable but they also host a lot of blog and user content that isn't, so you need to make sure that it's an article by the online newspaper. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  05:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to this story? If so, it looks like it's on one of their blogs and it's also not about Dixon, although it does mention him a few times - it's actually about Bernie Sanders. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  05:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Being quoted in articles about other things doesn't aid a person's notability — he has to be the subject of a source, not merely namechecked in an article about a different subject, for that source to contribute toward getting him over WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 15:16, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete The coverage is not enough about him to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:11, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e talk 15:59, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: No consensus at this time - more thoughts from new contributors to the AFD would be appreciated. KaisaL (talk) 00:49, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment, have been unable to find any reviews of the books that Dixon has written. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 00:49, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as there's still nothing actually convincing how he has his own established independent notability. SwisterTwister   talk  07:47, 9 July 2016 (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.