Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Yeagley


 * 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

David Yeagley

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This person doesn't appear to be notable. When the least fringey source you can find is an interview with him in the Washington Times blog... He just doesn't have the coverage outside of fringe sources and hate groups. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Deleting this seems like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. [redacted] The Washington Times is not considered a "fringey" source, it is a mainstream one, but it is one a far left person might object because of their own personal bias.  Subject and sources are notable. Neptune&#39;s Trident (talk)
 * Keep, the subject who went by "Bad Eagle", has received significant coverage in the Washington Times, a reliable, all be it biased, source. Furthermore, per WP:AUTHOR the subject's work has been cited in credible works, such as here. Furthermore, as an artist the subject has received significant coverage in a non-primary source, such as this article. Moreover, the subject has received a notable number of passing mentions, such as this one, and opinions included in such non-right leaning media as CNN, and Boston Globe, that the subject clearly passes WP:GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - Looks like a long-running hot topic at Wikipedia, judging from THIS 2006 blog post. My sense is that this individual probably does pass GNG as there is already a good source or two showing in the footnotes. Trout to Neptune's Trident for getting personal with the nominator — there is no call for that sort of stuff. Carrite (talk) 04:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:04, 12 October 2014 (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.