Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshua Bonehill (2nd nomination)


 * 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   keep. (non-admin closure)  Rcsprinter123    (gas)  @ 18:22, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Joshua Bonehill
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails our WP:BIO rules specifically relating to WP:ONEEVENT and WP:CRIMINAL. Nomination earlier this year included arguments relating to WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:GNG which seem to miss the bigger issues here related to WP:BLP. There is sensationalist coverage of his viral stunts by the BBC and The Independent, but they do not go the way to establish this person as notable as a criminal per Wikipedia policies since the fame is not at the level of renown. That's the level we ask for. I argue, strongly, that this person is unfamous. To wit, WP:BASIC points out that "trivial coverage by secondary sources may not be sufficient". We are at that level here. The local newspaper stories of this fellow's shenanigans are not enough to allow for a responsible WP:BLP. jps (talk) 09:25, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - multiple RS cover subject on multiple issues across multiple points in time DOCUMENT  ★  ERROR  10:56, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - main subject of numerous different articles by reliable nationwide sources. Although not all were criminal, think of him as a highly malevolent Banksy in this regard &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 12:18, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep easy decision, based on multiple reliable sources dealing with the subject in multiple ways. I for one could wish notability guidelines were a bit stricter, but I can't see as reasonable selective enforcement of stricter, and, honestly, flawed in terms of policy and guidelines, standards for this article than those used regarding many other articles. John Carter (talk) 16:20, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep for all the reasons already stated here, it's clear that whoever is nominating this article for deletion probably has a grudge or political disagreement against Bonehill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.56.53 (talk) 17:48, 27 December 2014 (UTC)   Sock of blocked   Andy Dingley (talk) 17:50, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Don't get the point why it was re nominated if the previous nomination I see is mostly keeps too.--Mishae (talk) 17:15, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per my rationale in the previous AfD. This person and his noxious politics get non-trivial coverage by multiple independent reliable sources even though he may not pass WP:POLITICIAN or WP:PERP. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - Article is covered by multiple and reliable sources. — Joaquin008  ( talk ) 21:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Keep: I can find enough evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 19:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes WP:GNG, needs some work though. Becky Sayles (talk) 15:55, 31 December 2014 (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.