Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Hunn (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 redirect to Burping. Consensus to not keep, but no clear consensus to delete, so redirection is a compromise (plus it is a likely search term as the burper is mentioned in the target article).  Sandstein  07:39, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Paul Hunn
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

WP:BLP of a person with no properly sourced claim to passing our inclusion standards. The notability claim on offer here is that he holds a Guinness World Record for the loudest known burp, sourced only to the Guinness website -- but holding a Guinness record for some random silly thing is not an automatic inclusion freebie in the absence of a WP:GNG-worthy volume of reliable source media coverage about him and his achievement. Guinness liberally hands out records for literally any inconsequential thing somebody deigns to contact them about, but an encyclopedia needs to see a reason why anybody ought to care. Bearcat (talk) 05:49, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 05:49, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 05:49, 2 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Records for random silly things are regularly in the news. Right now, our own ITN is headed by a new record for the women's hop, skip and jump, for example.  And then there's all the other silly Olympic sports for which there is strong competition but the winner there must be solo synchronised swimming!  The subject in this case has attracted lots of continuing coverage over the years for their repeated record setting – see the BBC or Guardian, for example.  There's a lot more coverage to be found by browsing the search links above and so it's clear that WP:BEFORE hasn't been done and WP:NEXIST applies. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:22, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete, the coverage is trivial. The comparison to Olympic Games watched by millions of viewers is probably meant as a joke? Geschichte (talk) 14:01, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Completely and utterly non-notable.  The idea that he is notable through holding a Guinness record would only apply if Guinness still kept the standards it did in the McWhirters' day (and no I don't endorse their politics!) but we all know that it doesn't.  If it did, someone's being cited by Guinness probably would make them notable for Wikipedia, but it doesn't and that's that.  To cite a silly season article, in however reliable a source, tells its own story.  Should note that even 15 years ago, when our standards were much lower, two out of three contributors wanted the article to be merged with another.  No excuses now.  RobinCarmody (talk) 19:35, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. non-notable based on a single source. Should there be other sources, creator can add for review. Peter303x (talk) 23:47, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Guinness "records" mean absolutely nothing, just pay them a few thousand and they'll give you whatever record you want. This is just some random guy with no claim to notability and no significant coverage. Mlb96 (talk) 03:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep for reasons cited above. Lots of sources out there.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 18:17, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete/redirect to Burping, which already mention the key details. A trivial Guinness record is not exactly notability, even with some human-interest stories related to it. Reywas92Talk 20:50, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per the WP:SUSTAINED coverage shared by Andrew Davidson. Articles in BBC News and The Guardian is enough to pass WP:GNG imo. Two votes above appear to ignore Andrew's comment and only focus on the present article, not the sources available elsewhere. NemesisAT (talk) 00:17, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Burping as per Reywas92 . I am not sure if the coverage quoted by Andrew Davidson really works as asserting notability for an encyclopaedia as the BBC link is not from the main news website but actually on the Newsround website, which is a childrens' news programme that often covers events of interest to children which would not pass WP:GNG, and the Guardian article is marked as part of the 'silly season', where strange events that would not normally be considered notable enough for inclusion in a newspaper are covered during slow periods. pinktoebeans  (talk) 11:57, 9 August 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.