Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnny Cassell


 * 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.  Sandstein  10:45, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Johnny Cassell

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Shameless self-promotion by single edit creator. Article is an orphan, perhaps emphasising how after almost 3 years it still hasn't found a place or integrated in here (because it doesn't belong on an encyclopaedia).

The subject is a pick-up artist (teaches dating to men) of some degree of success within this field, but not enough to justify a page - i.e. doesn't pass GNG. There does not appear to be significant coverage about him in reliable, independent publications. There's some stuff on esoteric sites dedicated to that field, and there's some stuff including an article he penned in a publication of note, but that's a one-off of him commenting on something that happened in that was noteworthy. overall i don't think any of them standalone can be considered significant nor is the sum of scraps anywhere near something significant

As an example of someone else in the industry (who doesn't have a page, perhaps because of notability issues too), here's a comparison of metrics which I appreciate isn't quite how notability/GNG works, but does help paint an overall picture Kezia Noble vs Johnny Cassell facebook fans: 266,228 vs 19,855 twitter: 15,500 vs 9,360 youtube subscribers: 391,920 vs 11,932

that should illustrate that the subject is several status levels below a peer from the same industry who has not yet been considered notable by any editor enough to warrant an article. The only reason this joke of an article (the weaselly content) exists is because someone with no connection or interest in this encyclopaedia made a one-off 'contribution', most likely to promote the subject and give it the illusion of importance and independent recognition.

Rayman60 (talk) 15:21, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Rayman60 (talk) 16:06, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Rayman60 (talk) 16:06, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:11, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, w umbolo   ^^^  22:02, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as A7 / G11. I requested such; let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete (@coffman, the speedy was never going to stick—the article makes too much of a claim of significance for its subject). There is, however, an absolute dearth of reliable coverage in either news outlets or literature. Passing mentions, press releases, directory-style entries, and generally unreliable sources such as tabloids and blogs, all insufficient to qualify as either in-depth or persistent coverage from the independent, secondary reliable sources that are necessary to pass the most basic requirements of WP:ANYBIO. ——  SerialNumber  54129  09:06, 14 November 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.