Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dillon Kivo


 * 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. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 19:44, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Dillon Kivo

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article has a great many sources. However, none of them meet our criteria for independent, reliable sources. Even the ones that are in nominally mainstream publications (e.g., the Chicago Tribune) are by 'community contributors' — or Dillon himself. Really, the only reason I'm not just putting this through speedy or prod is that it was created by someone who's been around for a while and a) should know better and b) will probably protest if it's deleted without a full AfD. DS (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep as a creator of this article. First of all, i've contributed numerous article of wikipedia. The admin who has put afd on this article hasn't done it on proper way as i did't got any notice. Thirdly, the community contributor on chicago tribune who published his article is in different name (Dillon hasn't kept himeslf) cause in large publications the editors and journalist are also named as contributor cause they cobtribute an article and last thing is he has been featured on forbes and various other international indpeendt mag and independent news sources which shows he is notable and he has won "National Honor Society" award too. so, any other discussions are welcome here and article should be kept.  AD  Talk 17:09, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * One piece published today in the Capital Gazette does not equate to significant in depth coverage. Particularly when the piece is mostly an interview, puff piece and written by a contributor and not their editorial staff. Praxidicae (talk) 17:47, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and my above comment. Praxidicae (talk) 17:47, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, no indication of notability. The piece highlighted by Azkord above is yet another one by a "Contributing Reader" or "Community Contributor". In fact, it's credited to the same name as the Chicago Tribune piece and the Daily Press piece. No, staff journalists aren't called that. The Capital Gazette has a dedicated FAQ about community contributors here and clearly distinguishes between them on the one hand and "Baltimore Sun Media Group newsrooms and trusted third-party vendors" on the other. None of the other sources cited in the article are of better quality. Huon (talk) 19:18, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - the article was created on March 3. On March 6 we have this. That's... quick. Huon (talk) 16:16, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * And on that note, can you explain how you assessed notability and wrote this article supposedly based on the Capital Gazette source which wasn't even published until 7 days after you created the article? Praxidicae (talk) 17:50, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

i usually use to check article from google news. Put the name there and it will appear on news index. Nepalese are not that much bad while using internet. And check your commons reply.  AD  Talk 17:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That doesn't even remotely begin to answer my question. You assessed notability on March 3rd, based on a source that did not exist until March 10th. How? Are you a time traveler? Praxidicae (talk) 17:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * And i am not claiming notability here. I was mentioning the new article which i found on google i think i have right to do that and if you think that it claims notabilty than in what based you're commenting that the article should be deleted?  AD  Talk 17:58, 14 March 2019 (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.