Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Delaney

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. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 17:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Delaney

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

Self-promotion for non-notable delusional Internet celebrity wannabe. Damiens.rf 19:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Delusional" seems a bit harsh and not in keeping with our policies about civility and assuming good faith. I would have supported deletion when this originally autobiographical article was first created nearly three years ago. But what has happened since then? Notability, that's what. In depth coverage in the Los Angeles Times. An interview on the CBS Evening News. Coverage in the New York Daily News and USA Weekend (circulation 22.6 million). Writeups in Hollywood trade publications like the Hollywood Reporter and Tubefilter, which is one of the most professional sites covering web media. Just what do terms like "delusional" and "wannabe" mean in this context? Cullen328 (talk) 05:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator does not sound objective, and that detracts from his or her credibility and led me to check out the article. I think there's sufficient coverage in RSs now for notability. KeptSouth (talk) 08:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While there is considerable COI and soapbox issues, the article has been spruced up with several reliable sources and is verifiable. I would look at the IP address that recently tweaked the article and possibly block the editor from editing the article. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 05:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per coverage. However, the article will need editing to change focus from VendrTV and back to the subject himself. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep. Per above keeps. Notable coverage.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Real, actual notability of this subject seems quite week, but the third party coverage somehow still exists. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 00:24, 20 January 2011 (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.