Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Hampton (writer)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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) NotAGenious (talk) 12:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Hampton (writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominated by Oiyarbepsy with the following rationale (see request):

I've reviewed the sources listed and they are all either passing mentions, short quotes from Hampton, or the work of Hampton himself. He does not appear to meet the notability requirements. I'll add that enough sockpuppets have attempted to create articles on this person that his name made it to the title creation blacklist. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/New baba/Archive for one of the sockpuppet investigation pages.

This is a procedural nomination; I am neutral. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:13, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Just from a quick glance for some sources, I'm finding plenty that cover his life and activities spanning years in multiple forms of publications, including the adaptation of one of his books into a TV series.
And that was just from a quick database search and Google search. So there's likely more to find for anyone who wants to dig deeper. SilverserenC 06:40, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 09:53, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:05, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep sources are not entirely about the subject, but they have enough coverage to just get it over the notability "edge". Oaktree b (talk) 16:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ones given above are ok, I'd rather these than what's used in the article to be honest. Oaktree b (talk) 16:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:12, 8 January 2024 (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.