Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bryce Hall (internet personality)


 * 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. consensus has shifted to keep Eddie891 Talk Work 02:02, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Bryce Hall (internet personality)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Citations are not all reliable, independent sources (Youtube, for example... WP:RSPYT). Ajshul 😀 (talk) 21:16, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ajshul 😀 (talk) 21:16, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Ajshul 😀 (talk) 21:16, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 21:25, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 21:25, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 21:25, 28 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Outside the bottom section where his parties/power being turned out can be sourced, the rest of the article is pretty much standard 'People article/sources say' or 'get 500 words around a social media post' questionable. I've contributed a few things to this article (including removing more questionable love life gossip), but I don't feel this subject meets WP:N myself.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 22:03, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Additional comment The 'house' the subject was formerly a part of, The Hype House, is also questionable on N itself, along with the one bluelink Lil Huddy.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 22:22, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: I agree that the article should only cite WP:RS. Hall meets WP:SIGCOV based on sustained coverage Forbes, BuzzFeed News, PinkNews, People, CNN, WFAA, Men's Health. I often refer to WP:RSP to check if a source is likely to be reliable. TJMSmith (talk) 22:46, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Just because one of the sources is traced to YouTube does not mean that all of the sources are unreliable or not independent. Hall meets WP:GNG based on the sources provided by TJMSmith.  Willsome 4 29  (say hey or see my edits!) 01:01, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, the sources identified by TJMSmith show that this guy passes both WP:GNG and WP:BLP1E. Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:13, 29 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Missing WP:N -- I don't see inherent notability, how many millions of social media enthusiasts have some mentions online. Has this person made any significant contributions to humanity?  art? culture?  Is there anything that makes this subject unqique?10Sany1? (talk) 20:04, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment, I'm sorry, but that !vote is literally just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:05, 31 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep per TJMSmith Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  09:37, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep my mind has been changed per TJMSmith. Ajshul 😀 (talk) 15:14, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per reliable sources indicated by TJMSmith. Article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎  (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 16:02, 2 November 2020 (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.