Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dusty Rhoades


 * 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. none ofhe keep arguments are relevant to notability  DGG ( talk ) 08:28, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Dusty Rhoades

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Aside from this being a self-published article, this guy's sole claim to fame is being a brony on the internet, something that hardly makes him unique or interesting. Jtrainor (talk) 08:10, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment I don't think this is self-published. Everymorning is the original author, I know I cleaned up from that. I have no added comment at this time about keep/delete but calling this "self-published" is not true at all. --M asem (t) 14:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment from article creator I did in fact create this article. I am not Dusty Rhoades and I have never even met him, so, as Masem pointed about above, it is totally incorrect to call this article "self-published", nor are any of its sources self-published. Every morning   (there's a halo...)  14:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete this proposal for a non-notable brony; otherwise way too many people would qualify. But if everyone's notable, then no one's notable. -The Gnome (talk) 16:25, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete mention in articles is not the same as substantial coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:58, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have no interest or real knowledge in this subject area, but for those who do, this subject does gets some pretty high level coverage - dedicated coverage from Entertainment Weekly is nothing to scoff at. I think it deserves a bit more effort than these lazy WP:ITSNOTNOTABLE responses above. Sergecross73   msg me  13:53, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   17:25, 27 March 2018 (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.