Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clint Stinchcomb


 * 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. I don't find the keep arguments persuasive in the face of the replies to them. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 08:46, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Clint Stinchcomb

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Potentially notable but references are routine announcements. Fails WP:SIGCOV.  scope_creep Talk  13:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  22:56, 5 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Logs: ,

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 02:40, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. GNG fail. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:54, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 13:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep There's coverage in context of two publicly traded companies on top of another that is notable enough for Wiki inclusion. Between the 15 sources included, meets WP:BASIC which states if depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. Per WP:BASIC, does not need to meet all criteria at WP:SIGCOV or WP:GNG since this is an article about a person. Sneakerheadguy (talk) 21:48, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not agree. The total number of sources in the article does not matter; 'none' of them represent personal significant independent coverage of Clint in reliable sources.  This is a high bar to meet.  Citation 1 is a routine business announcement and only mentions Clint in passing.  Citation 2, the same.  3 is about the company, not Clint.  4 is a routine announcement about the company, and does not substantially consider Clint.  5 is an insubstantial piece and an alumni magazine is not an independent WP:RS.  6 is a routine business announcement.  7 is an interview with him, so not independent.  8 is an article about his industry, and he was interviewed about it; it's not coverage of him, and it's not clear that this is an independent reliable source (Cigar Aficionado).  9 is an article that uses him as a source but is not independent coverage of him.  10 is as routine business announcement and does not cover Clint personally.  11 mentions him in passing only to quote him.  12 is nearly identical to #4 (same quotes, likely from the same press release or interview) and is a routine business announcement.  13 is a routine business announcement and mentions Clint only in passing.  14 is actually a redirect to #13.  15 mentions Clint only in passing in reference to his job, and is a routine business announcement.  16 is not about him at all and mentions him in a list of producers at the bottom.  17 is an insubstantial profile in something that is not likely a WP:RS, and in any case appears dependent because it primarily publishes information he clearly wrote about himself.  There's nothing left of the 17 sources in the article when it comes to making a case for WP:BASIC.  FalconK (talk) 00:18, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete another in a long line of articles on non-notable businessmen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * keep per reasoning stated above. meets wp:basic; i dont see sigcov or gng as a requirment as others mentioned. at wp:sigcov it says that a topic is not required to meet both the general notability guideline and a subject-specific notability guidline to qualify for a standalone article.73.119.117.165 (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * editor is a WP:SPA who doesn't understand notability. Has made 1 edit.   scope_creep Talk  22:35, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:50, 20 December 2020 (UTC) Alternatively, it might be interesting to explore the possibility of a MERGE with the current company CuriosityStream, as the CEOs of the major streaming services, of which this seems to be one, have received and will receive substantial coverage, and it seems a shame to be having this same discussion in six months, as it's pretty evident that the coverage will do nothing but increase fairly quickly. 69.203.17.42 (talk) 20:16, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. There's no coverage about him specifically.  His name is just mentioned a bunch in connection with companies.  The article is void of both useful information and WP:RS, mostly WP:MILL coverage of normal business changes.  The coverage is not personal and does not meet the notability criteria required of a bio.  FalconK (talk) 23:01, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Coverage does seem to be personal.  As mentioned above there's coverage of his involvement in the context of two publicly traded and there are several profiles on him. Thought the above point by @sneakerheadguy re: "Between the 15 sources included, meets WP:BASIC which states if depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. Per WP:BASIC, does not need to meet all criteria at WP:SIGCOV or WP:GNG since this is an article about a person."
 * User is a WP:SPA, who has made no other edits to wikipedia.   scope_creep Talk  21:17, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * In the interest of clarifying the outcome of this discussion, I rebutted Sneakerheadguy's comments above in detail. The volume of sources is not meaningful; not one of them is significant personal coverage, and there's absolutely no reason to believe the coverage will increase (but even if it did, WP:TOOSOON for the moment).  The multiple independent sources combined to demonstrate notability would need to, you know, add up to significant personal coverage in the aggregate.  They do not.  FalconK (talk) 01:12, 27 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:SIGCOV.  Onel 5969  TT me 16:29, 27 December 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.