Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chad Johnson (television 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 no consensus to delete. bd2412 T 02:04, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Chad Johnson (television personality)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Struggling to find enough independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 14:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment The article was not creted by an SPA and would do well to remove that personal attack. DuncanHill (talk) 14:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * A simple cut and paste error, easily fixed, and I have now done so. Please bear in mind Assume good faith before suggesting that anyone is making a "personal attack". Edwardx (talk) 15:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, in future I wil assume laziness and/or incompetence when you open AfDs. DuncanHill (talk) 16:08, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you delete the immediately-preceding WP:PERSONAL comment about another editor. "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done." Narky Blert (talk) 18:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read WP:Dick. Ifnord (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I was going to leave this well alone, but as you two have decided to bring it up again, I'll respond. When an editor falsely calls another an SPA, and then admits that he did so because he "cut and pasted" an AfD submission, instead of bothering to actually write one applicable to the article he wants deleted, I will assume laziness and/or incompetence on his part. As for people turning up late to a disagreement and stirring it all up again for no good reason, I'll just assume shit-stirring. I will not be responding further. DuncanHill (talk) 22:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete non-notable reality television figure.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Keep meets WP:ENT #1, significant part in multiple TV programs, in this case 5. Coverage in national publications in UK and US. Even if people disagree on that, we have a responsibility to look for WP:ATD, and there are good redirect/merge targets. Boleyn (talk) 16:46, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:04, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Keep. Person is active in their field with a substantial notoriety in television. Page cites reliable sources, person has had substantial media coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cz463 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 9 September 2017 (UTC)


 * meets WP:ENT #1, significant part in multiple TV programs of significant notoriety.


 * meets WP:ENT #1, person has been part of a cast of two major television programs that garner an average of 7-8 million viwers.


 * meets WP:ENT #1, significant part in television broadcast programs as correspondant.


 * meets WP:ENT #1, person has appeared in major networks like ABC and CBS.

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * meets WP:ENT #1, person works in has appeared in notable british programme in major networks Channel 5

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:28, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unconvinced this personage is notable, some sources but many are not reliable sources, or are primary sources. Working in television does not make you inherently notable. Google shows nothing useful. &Alpha; Guy into Books &trade;  &sect; ( Message ) -  19:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , what is your reason for not looking at WP:ATD? For the record, Aguyintobooks and I disagreed on another AfD, so within an hour he has stalked articles I've created, tagging 9 for notability or deletion and then this. Not exactly impartial, and can't have done WP:BEFORE considering how many he's just tagged in one hour. A minute or two is not enough before commenting, and you judged two other articles I created as non-notable within 4 mins each side of this, so you haven't looked properly. Boleyn (talk) 21:01, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No I checked this one yesterday, its unrelated. &Alpha; Guy into Books &trade;  &sect; ( Message ) -  21:05, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. From WP:BLPSOURCES, "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism". That covers London Evening Standard, Daily Mirror and The Sun - 6 of the 10 citations. The only cited source which looks even remotely WP:RS is The Observer, and the citation is headed "Welcome to Entertaining AF, a new celebrity column from Hollywood reporter Emily Bicks". My searches turned up nothing better. His broadcast appearances have been as part of an ensemble cast, and almost by definition such roles are not "significant" enough to pass WP:ENT. Wiki does not have articles about everyone who has appeared on one – or even more than one – reality show, and for good reason. Fails WP:GNG, fails WP:NBIO, fails WP:ENT. Narky Blert (talk) 19:19, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * StubifyHe's clearly well-known, but not enough RS to support it. L3X1 (distænt write)  02:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - When you take out the WP:BLPSOURCES violating content, there's nothing left. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Weak Keep My understanding (I'm not exactly The Bachelor's target audience) is that he was the most significant member of the show, and has been a significant part of other notable shows (meeting WP:ENTERTAINER) with international coverage. However, there is no escaping the issue that most coverage is in tabloids, which does not mean he lacks notability, but it makes it difficult to source to a good level. It is close but I vote to keep, by a whisker. If he was non-notable, I would argue for a redirect rather than deleting this article. It usually gets more than one hundred views a day, readers are interested in him, and there are good choices to redirect to. Nevertheless, weak keep. MartinJones (talk) 19:40, 19 September 2017 (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.