Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig Dillon (3rd nomination)


 * 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Craig Dillon
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP of a YouTube personality. While there's enough of a claim of notability here that a properly sourced article about him could potentially be kept, nothing here confers an automatic entitlement to keep an article just because he exists. The problem here, however, is the sourcing: it's far too reliant on primary sources, such as his own YouTube videos, media content where he's the bylined author or the interviewee rather than the subject, and the Facebook profile of a directly affiliated organization, and not nearly enough on reliable source coverage about him. The RS coverage that does exist is primarily about a criminal allegation which poses BLP sensitivities, rather than about his YouTuberness per se — only one RS is actually covering him specifically in a context that might actually justify an encyclopedia article. (Note, for the record, that the second deletion discussion was about the same person, but was different enough that this doesn't qualify for speedy deletion as a recreation of deleted content — but the first discussion was about a completely different person who merely happens to have the same name, so is entirely irrelevant here.) Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if it can be sourced better than this. Bearcat (talk) 19:15, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete This looks to me to be a fairly dangerous BLP. First, there's the fact that most of what he produces airs at Youtube, meaning that there's no editorial control over his work. Then, a good part of this article is about a rape accusation that also played out over Youtube, meaning that there is no verification that can be done. This article is a hornet's nest of unverifiable claims. LaMona (talk) 06:37, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. GSS  (talk) 06:49, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GSS  (talk) 06:51, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:01, 2 January 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. I checked his Youtube profile and he doesn't get many views or have many subscribers. The first AFD had 7 delete votes and no keeps. The second AFD had 7 delete votes and no keeps excluding SPA's. I read this article and he isn't notable in my opinion, he's wanting to be an internet personality and trying to use WP for that purpose. Szzuk (talk) 17:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete; it's all primary sources. No retrospective coverage: all the independent sourcing is coming from news articles about his activities.  Nyttend (talk) 19:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Perhaps nothing to suggest a currently better article. SwisterTwister   talk  00:02, 10 January 2016 (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.