Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graig Weich

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. With the socks taken out of the equation, consensus to delete is clear. Michig (talk) 08:16, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Graig Weich[edit]

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage about him in independent reliable sources. Awards are not major. TV appearances are minor. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ssт✈^(discuss) 17:17, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. ssт✈^(discuss) 17:17, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now at best as the article is not a deletion priority at this time, the current version is acceptable.Delete for now at best as this is another case of an article seeming notable and acceptable at first but my own searches found nothing better than a few passing mentions. I change my mind considering where this is AfD is going and what has happened, instead consider draft and userfying for now. SwisterTwister talk 03:37, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:32, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:38, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At first look seems to be notable due to the amount of sources that mention him, but a search finds nothing more than a few reliable sources. FiendYT 16:40, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Keep , though the subject may not be an A or even B list star, WP features many lesser known subjects, and subjects do not need to be stars, but simply notable enough sited by reliable sources that meet WP standards and because I see he has been featured recently in Newsweek, Yahoo, and before on the Howard Stern 100 show, Comic Book Men, E! Entertainment Television and is working with celebrities on TV and in media, IMDB, he is known beyond his field of work by continuing to appear on just enough main-stream media (as the sources cite) in the reference list, therefore he does meet the minimum required WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG.

Note: I will continue to search for more sources when I find more time later. I just saw a commercial featuring him for an upcoming appearance on WeTV David Tutera's show in 2016. Research confirms he is just known enough to be on WP and meet their requirements as mentioned. WP users can Youtube his video on the TV shows but cannot list his own Youtube channel as a source to cite because it's the subject's. Only list objective reliable sources.

Lastly, I spotted a "CNN I-Report" on the subject for winning the Urban Action Showcase Award at HBO but am unsure if that can be used to Cite as a source of reference, does anyone know if that comes from CNN directly or not?

~~baswana89 talk 08:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC) — baswana89 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.~~ [reply]

Administrator note - Editor baswana89 began editing at Wikipedia yesterday, heading directly for AfD discussions, which is a peculiar place to start. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:30, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note - Struck as confirmed sock -- RoySmith (talk) 00:45, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None of the current sourcing passes GNG, what is peacocked above as "featured" is not significant. You don't inherit notability from working with celebrities. Commercials are not independent reliable sources. Citizen journalism posted at CNN I report is not reliable, it's not by CNN. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But if you write comic books and cartoons that should be enough. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 07:41, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One last relist to gather more opinions. Sandstein 17:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As said above. This seems to perfectly meet GNG. The person is notable and there seems to be enough coverage to keep it. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 18:43, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How does he meet GNG? duffbeerforme (talk) 05:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Gave this a lot of thought and was going to say delete until I read the above comments that lead me to do my own further research which since then now make a lot of sense to consider keeping including watching the video on youtube as suggested above. Though I am new to contributing, I have been an avid reader of WP and take it very seriously hence I did not take it lightly to say keep but evidence in favor of keeping has been presented sufficiently. Lit1979 talk 23:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC) — Lit1979 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Struck as confirmed sock. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:24, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note - Editor Lit1979 began editing at Wikipedia yesterday, heading directly for AfD discussions. Note baswana69 above. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:42, 7 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Delete I don't see any non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. None of the awards are notable, and all of the RS links are just passing mentions (i.e., being briefly featured in a not-particularly-notable reality TV show). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No real evidence of the necessary detailed coverage. Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Yeah, yeah, I know, the last relist was supposed to be the last, but let's let the Lit1979 sock investigation run to completion -- RoySmith (talk) 00:49, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:49, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per user:SisterTwister as he is a comic book writer and cartoonist. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 08:39, 14 January 2016 (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.