Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devin Caherly


 * 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. Randykitty (talk) 11:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Devin Caherly

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Topic fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO, and reads like promotional content in my opinion. No verifiable articles online to substantiate that he is a known business person, which is the first line of the article. Also, I don't consider having a TikTok account with a large following enough to satisfy the requirement for inclusion in an encyclopedia, especially in a day and age where social media followers can be purchased. Topic appears to be promotional content and nothing more. Megtetg34 (talk) 00:01, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2021 April 4.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 00:13, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - no claim of notability, fails WP:GNG. Riteboke (talk) 07:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC)#
 * Keep Pass WP:GNG with coverage in reliable sources such as the ones here [] [] Northern Escapee (talk) 07:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I find it absurd   that the NY Times gave substantial coverage to him, but so they did, and I think we must accept their judgment,.  DGG ( talk ) 09:29, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. One article in the NYT isn't enough to pass WP:GNG. Neither is 2. I'm not seeing in-depth significant coverage in multiple RS and biographical articles needs at least WP:3REFS as bare minimum. Megtetg34 (talk) 22:41, 15 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:ENT (large fan base) and WP:SIGCOV. Caherly is a social media personality. There are at least 3 separate instances of his posts generating coverage in reliable sources: POV meme, TikTok duets , and social media trends . Nomination reads like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. TJMSmith (talk) 23:47, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * My nom is baked in WP policy, and nothing else. I see that you created the article, and have been editing it since the nom. Perhaps you have a connection to topic, or your opposition is more a case of WP:ILIKEIT? Megtetg34 (talk) 00:53, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * For clarification: Source 1 is a local, neighborhood publication. Doesn't pass WP:NEWSORG. Source 2 talks about one of his posts, not him, and only mentions his username. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Sources 3 and 4, talk about his relationship with another social media star, Tatayanna Mitchell, who's Wikipedia page has also since been deleted. Source 5 is about one of his social media posts, not WP:SIGCOV of the topic himself. The argument that the topic meets WP:ENT based on criterion #2 large fan base is referenced in WP:YOUTUBE: A frequent argument put forward for keeping the article is that a subject is notable because of their number of subscribers or the number of times their videos have been viewed. There are other trivial or passing mentions of his name, and/or TikTok name on other, unverified sources, however they lack depth, and the only other sources I found that offered deep coverage on him was on hiseye.org, which is the publication of a high school in which he went to, vizaca.com, a submit your own interview/content website, and celebpie.com, a social media directory. So, until WP policy is amended to allow social media personalities in with big follower counts, there should still be WP:SIGCOV in multiple RS to warrant encyclopedic inclusion and I have found nothing additional to meet GNG criterion for this topic. Hence, the nomination. Megtetg34 (talk) 00:53, 18 April 2021 (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.