Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Dylan Finch

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:36, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Dylan Finch

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

WP:BLP of a blogger, which is referenced entirely to his own primary source content with no evidence of any reliable source coverage about him provided at all. As always, every person who exists is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because directories of his own work exist on the websites of the publications he wrote for -- to qualify for an article, a person needs to be the subject of media coverage written by other people, not the bylined author of coverage of other things. Bearcat (talk) 17:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've found no evidence of significant, independent coverage per WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Notability is not inherited by contributing to notable publications. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:38, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He has press coverage with Anxy Magazine (https://medium.com/anxy-magazine/who-gets-to-decide-what-conversations-have-value-ff93c9fa3509) and the Michigal Journal (http://michiganjournal.org/2015/10/27/writing-program-hosts-panel-discussion-to-celebrate-national-day-on-writing/). He is also mentioned on Jes Baker's page because he contributed to her anthology of essays. --decorcione! (talk) 21:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those are notability-assisting sources. Anxy is a Q&A interview in which he's talking about himself, and Michigan Journal is a university student newspaper — which are types of sources that can be used for supplementary sourcing of stray facts after GNG has already been covered off by general market media coverage that's written in the third person, but not sources that can be used to bring the passage of GNG. And a person doesn't get a Wikipedia article just because his name is mentioned in another Wikipedia article about someone else, either. Bearcat (talk) 03:49, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Websites and student newspapers don't carry any real weight for demonstrating notability. Agricola44 (talk) 17:33, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:28, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A New York Times feature is the definition of notability. I never heard that a Q&A format excludes a source, if true then Charlie Rose and Terry Gross interviews would be forbidden, but again they define notability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:42, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Q&A interviews can certainly be used for supplementary verification of facts in a Wikipedia article whose notability has already been properly demonstrated by stronger third-party and third-person sources — but they cannot be used as data points toward getting the person past WP:GNG if they're the best sources on offer, because people cannot talk themselves into wikinotability. Bearcat (talk) 14:43, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The New York Times feature (opinion page) is them writing about themself, the Michigan Journal is an interview, ULoop is not about Finch, Upworthy is a blog, Everyday Feminism articles are primary sources, HuffPost is primary, Ravishly is primary, LetsQueerThingsUP is an interview, Medium is an interview, WearYourVoiceMag is only two sencences actually discussing Finch. There are no independent, secondary, reliable sources writing in-depth about the subject. --Darth Mike^(talk) 12:26, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are not enough sources on the subject, as opposed to ones by the subject, to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NYT source is from the "storywall", so I don't think this helps much. Most of the other sources are also problematic (web ephem, obscure, etc). Agricola44 (talk) 17:40, 28 September 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.