Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Little Danny Roark


 * 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 04:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Little Danny Roark

 * – ( View AfD View log )

As with most twelve-year-olds, there's no sign of substantial coverage in reliable sources sufficient to pass WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. Although the article asserts that he is "widely known", he would appear to be simply a run-of-the-mill child. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, if you search up his name, almost nothing comes up except for his Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.49.2 (talk) 12:46, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Biographical article of a child with zero good sources cited. Content and deletion policy is a lot stronger in this area, and the burden of showing sources a lot more immediate. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 03:23, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete This child is simply not notable. The claim is made that he wrote a book but it has no ISBN number. No significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  15:52, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete -- I have grave doubts whether any 12-year-old would be notable, except possibly a king. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Mozart, Shirley Temple, and other child prodigies. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:25, 4 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete For the reasons already stated. I partially suspect that the Little Dany Roark article may be a Wikipedia Conflict of Interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Landino1 (talk • contribs)
 * Delete. Absolutely nothing here is a reliable source that indicates notability. Apparently he wrote a self-published e-book. According to a Facebook page, he is associated with a gospel band that does not have an article of its own, which includes his father who, according to this article, has only been a Christian for four months, thus suggesting that the association with this band has been only of short duration. Also, a newspaper article showed a photo of him and his fourth-grade classmates when they went to a state park and learned about identifying trees. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment by nominator: It would appear to be pretty heavily SNOWing. In light of the substantial BLP issues presented, I would encourage any roaming sysop to close this discussion sooner rather than later. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Jesus loves me too, but I don't need a wikipedia article. Nothing found to show him as being more important than a random 12 yr old. Oaktree b (talk) 21:13, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete This is one of the worst sourced and most engaged in over the top promotionalism articles I have seen. Having your name mentioned in a hyper local paper article on your school doing a fundraiser is not a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:48, 6 April 2021 (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.