Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carson Tueller


 * 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Carson Tueller

 * – ( View AfD View log )

WP:BLP of a person notable primarily as a social media influencer, not reliably sourced to sufficient coverage to get him over WP:GNG. Of the nine footnotes here, three are his own self-published content about himself on Instagram, LinkedIn and his own website, two are his "staff" profiles on the websites of organizations he's directly affiliated with, two are blogs and one is a podcast in which he's talking about himself in Q&A interview format -- which means that eight of the nine footnotes are not notability-supporting sources. The only source here that's actually useful is one article from a newspaper in a midsized media market -- but that's not enough coverage to make him encyclopedically notable all by itself if all of the other sources are junk. Nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have more than just one piece of reliable source coverage about him in real media. Bearcat (talk) 18:18, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:18, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:18, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. There is no evidence of any notability. When this first appeared I nominated it for speedy deletion which was overruled with the justification of "....he article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance". I wasn't prepared to argue the toss on a speedy deletion but it certainly gets nowhere close to notability on the sources quoted. At the time of the speedy nomination I also did extensive searches to see if any better refs were available. I could not find any. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk 18:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete rather thinly sourced. How does it not have categories? Oaktree b (talk) 00:18, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete this article does not even come close to meeting actual notability criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesn't meet notability standards. It isn't reliably sourced, and there aren't reliable sources out there because of the notability issue. Half of the sources are casual social media posts. AgentVibrantReality (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2021 (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.