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. Issues with the tone of the article should be dealt with through editing and discussion on the article talk page. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:44, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Edge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

unremarkable YouTube personality Mjbmr (talk) 03:26, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Please see my comment at another AfD started by this user. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:10, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:45, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:45, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- coverage is either local or tabloid-like & unsuitable for a BLP. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:46, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Power~enwiki (talk) 03:00, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Jamesjpk (talk) 03:46, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  NOTE: for two above votes no reasons given, not qualified. Mjbmr (talk) 19:06, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

• Comment once again, note details on my user page. Power~enwiki (talk) 08:08, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  See my comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dennis Roady. Mjbmr (talk) 09:03, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Sourced, notable Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While much is local, there is a lot of local, plus there are other sources outside his backyard. This one passes the bar of WP:GNG. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:19, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete After looking further, I've changed my mind. There's no reason the article needs to be deleted (it likely passes WP:GNG), but there's also no good reason to keep it. Being a "Youtube celebrity" means his entire public profile is self-promotional in nature, and I don't see any way to repair this article to get around that. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If he passes WP:GNG, we don't discriminate because his "public profile is self-promotional". The same could be said of many notable, and much more notable persons. Most public figures are first and foremost into promoting their own image, be it Beyonce or Neil deGrasse Tyson. Go to their websites, they self-promotional. This is smaller scale, but the same effect, so the question is whether or not you pass WP:GNG and nothing else. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • If somebody can improve the article quality, I might support keeping the article. The original author is the person who created the AfD and clearly won't repair the article going forward. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • That isn't the standard for keeping or deleting an article, GNG is. See WP:PROBLEM, under "arguments to avoid at AFD". Most articles are improved by persons other than the original creator, and there is no deadline. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 08:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • He meets "being the subject of at least two articles in legitimate media sources", but it's almost impossible to say whether any specific article is promotional or a "human interest story" in nature. I dislike every possible option for this article at this time. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • I really do understand Power~enwiki. Often, I have to hold my nose when doing the proper thing but whether I'm acting as editor or admin, it is important to put my personal feelings aside and judge each situation fairly using the same criteria I would if I loved the content. This isn't always easy, but it is the goal for the encyclopedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep GNG met. Pretty straightforward. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:17, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Again I state my Keep vote, as there are many good references in the article, and outside of it. Some work needs to be done on the article, but this article has a ton of WP:Potential. Jamesjpk (talk) 01:12, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate iVote struck. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not a duplicate because as Mjbmr states, "NOTE: for two above votes [my vote was in the two above] no reasons given, not qualified." I relisted my vote, to be qualified, and to restate my vote.

• Keep While many references are local, if the argument to delete is his level of notability be aware that his fan base is reasonably international.YangTegap (talk) 22:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)YangTegap[reply]
• Keep per Dennis Brown; it's perhaps an unfortunate reflection upon what can be conseidered newsworthy today, but the coverage allows him to pass WP:ANYBIO. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 14:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.