Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chuck Tingle


 * 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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:02, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Chuck Tingle

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:ONEEVENT, as he is only notable for a single incident in which he was nominated for an award as a prank. Also fails WP:LASTING, as nearly every secondary source was published within a span of about six months in 2016 (the year in which the prank occurred) and there is no evidence the prank had a significant long-term impact. Also fails WP:AUTHOR, since he is a self-published author who has received little recognition outside of media coverage related to the prank. Also, the article relies heavily on primary sources, with his Tweets, Facebook page and website comprising more than a fifth of sources cited. Furthermore, the article cites numerous sources of questionable credibility, such as Jezebel, Salon and the Mary Sue. Baronet13 (talk) 22:42, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - sources generally discuss the Hugo nominations, etc., and don't seem to be problematic or contentious. Plus, he has recently gained more coverage by trolling Greg Abbott; it's also been announced that he has signed a two-book deal with Tor. I'll pop these into the article shortly. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:57, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * KEEPas above there's plenty of other coverage in fairly decent sources to pass WP:AUTHORUnbh (talk) 00:03, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Plenty of sources covering multiple events. This AfD is, at best, misguided. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:02, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 01:13, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 01:13, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Tony Fox has pointed out this isn't a one-event issue. Among other coverage, he has a 5000-word profile in Vox: . He also has two books coming out with Tor in 2023 and 2024 (Tor announcement: ); he is only going to get more notable. -- asilvering (talk) 02:18, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep - Hugo-nominated *twice*, lots of WP:RS reporting, just been signed with a "big five" publisher... De Guerre (talk) 04:33, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: yes, the Hugo award kerfuffle may be what Tingle recieved mainstream notice for, but long profiles in Vox and the Daily Dot suggest that he is not notable for just that event. Other stunts Tingle has pulled have had coverage in The Advocate and Vox again, news of his upcoming mainstream novel was picked up by BoingBoing, and Wired spent a couple paragraphs discussing Tingle's second Hugo nomination. WP:LASTING isn't relevant because it's for articles about events, not people.  WP:AUTHOR is an additional criterion to WP:BASIC (the text of WP:BIO explicitly says that "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included ... A person who does not meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability"), and in this case I think there is clearly enough coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG.  The second half of the deletion rationale isn't really relevant to whether or not Wikipedia should have an article on Tingle as AfD is not cleanup – whatever its problems, the article is nowhere near so bad as to justify WP:TNT. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:30, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: obviously notable, and nomination is trying very hard to pretend otherwise. Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:20, 19 August 2022 (UTC)


 * KEEP Chuck Tingle is one of the most famous self-published authors there are. He is literally an icon, and the idea that a famous self-pubbed author isn't worthy of a wiki page is ridiculous. Additionally, he has recently signed a two book deal with Tor. He's had Hugo nominations. Keep the damned page. 2A02:C7D:A1A5:E00:D183:98F1:27DB:1F06 (talk) 14:46, 19 August 2022 (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.