Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dustin Cumming


 * 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 no consensus. No consensus to delete, or draftify, this article has been reached. Concerns regarding the SPA are, I think, unfounded, and since their !vote was so lacking a basis in policy, it can be effectively discounted for the purposes of this evaluation in any case. (non-admin closure) &mdash; fortuna  velut luna  06:20, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Dustin Cumming

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial, in-depth support. red dogsix (talk) 15:24, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:17, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:18, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:18, 30 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Has appeared on multiple notable television shows. A news search brings back some press releases, but also some LA Times articles. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  08:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep I concur with Ritchie333. He appeared on several notable shows and has continual ongoing press in Los Angeles Times, and is now publishing a book. According to Wiki guidelines, "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." A news search brings back 4 LA Times feature articles; other newspaper articles can be found on the web. All the other co-hosts for the Selling NY, Million Dollar listing also have Wiki pages (those pages are written similarly) and most of the hosts of the same TV shows have Wiki pages deemed "notable" pursuant to community standards. If permitted, I can provide the reference links to all the other TV hosts with approved-Wiki articles. Also, he is co-writing a book with a New York times bestselling author (who has a wikipedia page) to be released in 2018. Mbarywiki (talk) 09:43, 31 July 2017 (UTC) Comment: I am somewhat new to Wikipedia. This is my first voting situation.  Wanted to cast one vote only -- rather than take an "all or nothing" approach, I am more than willing to hear suggestions on how this page can be improved and further edited and to learn from people who are more experienced. If I did not follow the protocol, I apologize. We all have a learning curve. Mbarywiki (talk) 18:54, 4 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. If this isn't "purely promotional", it is surely close enough.  SPA creator, whiff of Coi, minimal 3rd party sources.  If this were about a genuinely notable subject, cleanup would make sense, but this is a case where the People vs. Britanica test  makes sense: In a pre-internet world, would the subject have shown up in People, or an Encyclopedia?  Broadsheet or tabloid?  Journalism or Press release?  This looks on the wrong side of all of these. Anmccaff (talk) 19:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: The creator of this article just changed the words I wrote above, and added a second keep vote. I've reverted both, and left a talkpage warning. Anmccaff (talk) 17:29, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The creator of the page just added a couple of blatant examples of flouting WP:NPA. I've reverted them, and left a warning.  Anmccaff (talk) 18:28, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Diffs? I have warned the editor above about warning without evidence, removing comments they don't like, and claiming personal attacks where none exist. If somebody disagrees with you at an AfD, accept it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  13:02, 5 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. This TV Personality is note-worthy. Any & all doubt can be removed by the numbers- which are completely objective. The article created is already getting approximately 100 views per day from the general public while in the voting process. If he wasn't note-worthy, he wouldn't have been covered by the LA Times repeatedly nor would anyone be interested in publishing his book. RobertUpton (talk) 07:51, 5 August 2017 (UTC)


 * — RobertUpton (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. <sup style="color:#093">My name is <small style="color:#4000FF">not <sup style="color:#093">dave (talk/contribs) 07:52, 5 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment I am very dubious about how this AfD has gone. The above "editor" has, as noted, only posted in this AfD and i'd urge checking if some sock puppetry is at play here, especially as it comes not long after Richie advised a keep result is likely if another keep vote is given. I think the admin who handles the AfD should be mindful that the support for keep isn't necessary, at this stage, as strong as the article editor would like it to be. In fact, it would seem only 1 recognised editor, with the conflicted article author aside, has thus far voted to keep. Bungle (talk • contribs) 20:50, 5 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment I am a newbie... Some Wiki veterans have been teaching me through their positive example (Thank you <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b>.) As I understand it, this discussion is supposed to be about whether someone is notable, has sources, and how the article can be improved. According to Wiki guidelines, "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." A news search brings back 4 LA Times feature articles, and several notable TV shows. This article subject has the required coverage from independent reliable sources. Several co-host and co-authors have independent Wiki pages. I understood this page is for discussion of the merits. Lets please discuss the merits (without personal attacks on private pages (talk)) and focus on the discussion at hand. If a topic received coverage in reliable sources and co-hosts all have standalone Wikipedia articles, seems clear that this article should be "presumed suitable for a stand-alone article." Lets focus on the merits. I am most grateful. Thank you.  Mbarywiki (talk) 06:42, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you just need to take a step back and let the process run its course; continually defending your own view when others don't absolutely agree with your position isn't all that helpful to achieving a fair consensus. Whilst it's a slight COI to post in an AfD for an article you are the primary author for, I think it's generally still allowed but you had a chance already to express your viewpoint so please just let it run. Bungle (talk • contribs) 09:24, 6 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Draftify to Draft:Dustin Cumming as I can't find a compelling reason at this stage to vote for or against deletion, but moving to the draftspace would afford the editor some time to improve the article outside of the mainspace. Bungle (talk • contribs) 09:27, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: Bungle Thank you for the invaluable direction and feedback. Much appreciated. Mbarywiki (talk) 19:04, 6 August 2017 (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.