Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh Ritchie


 * 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.  Sandstein  17:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Josh Ritchie

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non noteworthy AIowA (talk) 21:43, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2018 December 15.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 00:02, 15 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Tentative Delete. On the one hand, per WP:BASIC, I can see a good keeping argument that this guy has been the subject of sustained coverage in what might be called reliable sources. On the other this is purely for celebrity gossip, and notability =/= fame. FOARP (talk) 18:53, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:06, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:06, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep, it is important to notify the creator, and your deletion reason is vague. He meets WP:BASIC - he may not have media coverage for highbrow activities, but there is sufficient media coverage. He has been an integral part of two television series; if it was one, he would merit a redirect under WP:BLP1E, but this is a WP:BLP2E situation, i.e. there is no reason for deletion, as he has been in multiple notable shows, meeting WP:ENT #1: Has had significant roles in multiple notable films...television shows. Boleyn (talk) 19:45, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:21, 21 December 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. Subject meets WP:GNG at the very least. There are multiple, good references which focus on the subject. As Boleyn points out, the subject may only be notable for base reasons but notability guidelines such as WP:ENT do not require projects to be works of art. Ifnord (talk) 00:49, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:21, 28 December 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.