Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Josh Bogert

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was:  The result was Speedy deleted per CSD G13 by User:Anthony Bradbury. (non-admin closure) Rlin8 (talk) 05:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Josh Bogert

 * — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 19:36, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 19:36, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Resubmitted over 10 times in the last few months and none of it has significantly changed because he only has 1 work so far. SwisterTwister  talk  20:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak delete Someone could probably write an article on this guy. It might stick; it might get TOOSOONd. If this editor wants help doing so, there's plenty of people that will try to help them. But, if all they are going to do is log in once a week and resubmit, that's just a waste of everyone's time. Timothy Joseph Wood  19:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. None of the sourcing present here is enough to get him over WP:GNG as of right now — apart from one human interest piece in his local hometown newspaper, the "referencing" here is entirely to primary or circular sources, or glancing namechecks of his existence in newspaper articles that aren't about him, rather than to reliable sources — and nothing claimed in the article body is compelling enough to grant him a presumption of notability in the absence of enough reliable sourcing to get him over GNG. There's also a possible conflict of interest here, as the creator's username is "Gingerweirdo" and the subject appears, based on the photo in that hometown newspaper piece, to be a redhead. As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which an aspiring future celebrity is entitled to an article just because he exists; an article becomes earned on the basis of reliable source coverage which verifies passage of a specific notability criterion. No prejudice against recreation in the future if and when he can be properly sourced as having attained notability, but nothing present here gets him an article today and the constant resubmission is just disruptive. Bearcat (talk) 17:23, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The statement by the nominator that this has been "resubmitted over 10 times in the last few months" seemingly conflicts with "ha[s] not been edited in over six months" (the former by my interpretation of few; the latter a requirement of G13). Just checking to make sure you meant to delete it in that manner. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 10:17, 16 January 2017 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.