Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Schlichter


 * 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. Tidal wave of Deletes. Liz Read! Talk! 06:51, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Jacob Schlichter

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

PROD declined, 's reasoning is: "Doesn't quite meet WP:BIO; notability claims based on a photo appearing at the Austin airport and interviewing Tommy Chong." Liliana UwU (talk / contribs) 17:44, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Photography,  and Fashion.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contribs) 17:44, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Promotional article with thin notability claims, mostly around some of his art hanging at the Austin airport, and interviewing Tommy Chong on a podcast. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:48, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, there seem to thousands of people on wikipedia with far less notability behind them.
 * I've been following this young man for sometime and believe that his working with an internationally recognized celebrity, winning a regional multi-state call for art, having an separate art exhibit, and being considered repeatable enough to interview the aforementioned celebrity warrants a page.
 * I totally respect your belief and only ask that you look more into this because based on your proposal to delete the page you have a pretty clear misunderstanding of the page and the person the page is about.
 * His art is NOT in the Austin airport it's located in the Rochester INTERNATIONAL airport. He did not ONLY interview Tommy Chong, he's is the apparel head for the Tommy Chong brand and oversees their international sales and distribution along with the design and manufacturing.
 * I look forward to your response and hope you are doing well.
 * MapleviewLounge (talk) 17:59, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, considering the very tenuous claims to notability, with a lot of the sources primary. Not notable yet. Sionk (talk) 20:03, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, there are far more people with far less notability on wikipedia. MapleviewLounge (talk) 21:04, 7 December 2022 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: MapleviewLounge (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.
 * Keep, all imma say is that I come from a small town area where we got lots of people on Wikipedia with 1 link citing any info about them. I think having a few interviews with reliable and independent publications and working alongside a globally recognized celebrity meets the requirements for significant coverage and means there's a presumed assumption that people from his area would be looking him up and wanting info on a wiki page that they can trust. but like that's just my two cents based off the info on the Wikipedia notability section. IBurnTrees (talk) 21:40, 7 December 2022 (UTC)  —  is a confirmed sock puppet of.
 * Delete I can't find any significant coverage outside the two local news writeups cited in the article. ( On Wikipedia, the word "notability" isn't a value judgement about the importance of the subject; it's simply a question of whether we have access to enough reliable information to write a decent-sized article. If you think the article should be kept, you need to demonstrate the existence of multiple reliable sources on the subject.) Sojourner in the earth (talk) 23:18, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't find much else for sourcing than what's given in the article, and that's not GNG. And the sock is a red flag that this isn't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 03:08, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep I mean I ended up here because I came from a wiki search after fixing a citation error on Tommy Chong’s page. Even though there are only 3 small town interviews all with just BARELY enough info to meet my personal definition of significant coverage and all with varying info, I still found the answer to my questions about how Tommy Chong ended up letting this dude use his name and likeness. That’s literally a successful use of Wikipedia and arguably the definition of what Wikipedia is about; spreading knowledge and making it accessible. The puppet is sus but usually that indicates someone either has fans trying to impress them or hired some scammer to get them a wiki page. You can’t attribute something to malice if stupidity is equally applicable. Seems like people put the bare amount of effort into this stuff but maybe I don’t know anything but I know knowledge should be free and EASILY accessible. XavDaPlug (talk) 04:12, 8 December 2022 (UTC) ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 16:56, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: Not seeing any reason to believe this person is notable. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:02, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. --Assyrtiko (talk) 06:09, 9 December 2022 (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.