Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dekker Dreyer (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 keep. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:39, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Dekker Dreyer
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable. All sources are trivial. HappyGoLucky007 (talk) 01:26, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Just added a link to an article from December 13th I found. It's a long profile piece on We Are Indie Horror. This whole thing feels dumb. He's obviously well known in horror and sci-fi circles and the coverage, like I said above, is great because it also spills over into mainstream sources. I think this was a bad faith nomination.--2605:E000:90D9:F700:51FC:C9D8:716B:90C2 (talk) 05:48, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Three nominations by three accounts, all of which appear to have done nothing on Wikipedia besides nominate this article at AfD? Sourcing seems fine for a niche subject. I also suspect someone needs to find a more productive hobby than nominating articles of people they don't personally like. Timothy Joseph Wood  15:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete The coverage is all trivial.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:26, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Two sources I recently added are full interviews directly about Mr. Dreyer and the "trivial" coverage is all from well known reputable sources. More than enough to meet the criteria for inclusion. It should also be noted that over the years digging into the history I discovered that many sources have been culled as dead links as they are no longer online. I read that notability is not temporary. A consistent history of being referenced in articles in his field for over ten years, including things like Variety, Deadline, Wired, The Advocate, feels more than enough to keep. --2605:E000:90D9:F700:FD17:9CB1:FFBC:210D (talk) 06:18, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

[redacted] Withdrawn. I don't care. [redacted] --HappyGoLucky007 (talk) 05:54, 25 December 2016 (UTC) Just looked at those diffs... yikes. Thanks Meter. 2600:1012:B004:408:C5E4:D256:E159:6C37 (talk) 03:29, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment The nominator is now indeffed for disruptive editing. It certainly appears from the content of some edits that this was a bad faith nomination, as the IP suggested. Meters (talk) 08:38, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems to be enough meat to show notability now.Meters (talk) 08:27, 26 December 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.