Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Billy


 * 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. Randykitty (talk) 23:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Michael Billy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I think this is a case of WP:TOOSOON and a massive case of WP:ARTSPAM. There is a fair amount of hyper local coverage but little in the way of national or significant in-depth coverage at this point in time. Praxidicae (talk) 21:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:52, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:52, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. Michael Billy is notable for several reasons. He won the equality award, as stated in what was listed, as well as being included in Clinton’s anti-bullying campaign (also listed). He has also brought Hudson Pride Center to the forefront in the LGBT’s connection to care with Carepoint Health. This links directly to his own mental heath battles that he has had throughout his youth. His advocacy work with Jersey City Stands alone has brought notability to Jersey City and helped lead JC to become a sanctuary city. Jtbell04 (talk) Jtbell04 —Preceding undated comment added 23:06, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Doesn't pass WP:GNG and looks like a case of WP:PROMO, none of the above reasons establish notability. Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:59, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Being CEO of a locally-focused organization is not an instant notability freebie that guarantees someone a Wikipedia article just because they exist, and people aren't automatically notable just because they won awards that aren't notable either — for either of those claims, the notability test is the depth and geographic range of media coverage that they can be shown to have received in those contexts. But this is entirely too dependent on sources that aren't cutting it in terms of getting him over the inclusion bar: every single source here is a blog, a Q&A interview in which he's speaking about himself or a piece of writing where he's the bylined author and not the subject, a glancing namecheck of his existence in a source whose primary subject is somebody else, a primary source that does absolutely nothing to help establish notability at all, or a piece of purely local coverage in his own hometown media that any locally active organizer and political candidate could routinely expect to receive. Nothing stated in the article body is "inherently" notable for the purposes of establishing his eligibility to have a Wikipedia article, but none of these sources are strong enough to make him special. Bearcat (talk) 20:39, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. No significant independent source (never mind several), despite being in a major U.S. city. Article is written in a very promotional style. Britishfinance (talk) 19:28, 11 February 2019 (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.