Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donnie dumphy

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. NW (Talk) 22:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Donnie dumphy

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

Showed up on a radio show which doesn't make it an indication of significance LH (talk) 07:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A "YouTube following" doesn't make notability. No sources about his notability are provided. I did fix some typos and grammar issues in the article, but even its title is mistyped. Carelessly created, non-notable subject. McMarcoP (talk) 08:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted vandalism - the page had been blanked out by an anon IP address McMarcoP (talk) 08:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC) [reply]

~~Delete~~ Unless someone can find substantial coverage in reliable sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Some evidence of notability per sources found by good faith editors. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - This article from the St. John's Telegram is very substantial. There is also this short interview from the local arts paper. And there is a brief mention on CBC radio 2. Yes, one could argue it is a blog, but that's just a hip way for online media to label what would traditionally be called a column. The author is the host of a radio show. That's not a lot of coverage, but I'm falling on the side of keep based on the substantial writeup in the SJ Telegram. -- Whpq (talk) 20:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - One of his videos (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQS1Rwo5vp0) has close to half a million views on Youtube, not counting all the views of the other videos he has. Furthermore, the additional appearances on Sirius/XM satellite radio shows cited today lends itself to some degree of noteriety - Sirius/XM is an international platform with over 20 million listeners. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.236.254.162 (talk) 18:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "Sirius/XM is an international platform with over 20 million listeners." It should be further clarified that Sirius/XM is the national satellite radio provider for the entirety of Canada and the United States. --Ookamo (talk) 08:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The popularity of the youtube video is not itself proof of notability (is .5 m that many on youtube?). The XM radio subscriber base is even less persuasive. Apparently the video had a single piece on a single show on a single channel on satellite radio. LH (talk) 18:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - 500,000 YouTube hits ain't shabby, but that doesn't prove notability. Neither does XM, but the two combined come closer. Still, let's delete this one. Notability might be attained at some point in the future, though. CorpITGuy (talk) 19:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources found by Whpq establish that Dumphy passes WP:N. Local sources should not be disqualified when judging notability; this individual has received enough coverage to guarantee an article on Wikipedia. CorpITGuy's WP:NOTBIGENOUGH argument is flawed because notability is not subjective. It does not matter how many hits Dumphy's YouTube channel has received; it does matter how many sources she has. And she does have enough coverage, so this article should be kept. Cunard (talk) 20:56, 31 August 2009 (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.