Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vas J Morgan

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vas J Morgan

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

A celebrity blogger. Has been blogging for less than 9 months. References in the article just have him briefly mentioned... mentioned in the caption of a photo or mentioned that he was at a party. Unable to find any reliable sources about him. Prod was disputed. Bgwhite (talk) 22:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. If and when he becomes notable, we'll revisit. Right now, tho, this looks like promotion of a not-yet-notable blogger. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 00:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A simple google search will reveal that, not only is he a notable blogger, but he also has had several articles in press and notable blogs that do not just mention him briefly, he is also a notable socialite with a strong presence on Getty Images, a notable site known for catching Social Activities, he is not just a blogger ~~*Keep~~ I suggest keep the article, regardless of him mentioned in press briefly, he has still be mentioned and named and NOTED as a blogger, the article is extremely well written and there is no sign of trying to promote within the article. please point out where it is, if there is any, this is why the article was accepted in the first place — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.222.8.199 (talk) 11:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There is coverage in
~~general notability guidelines. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 17:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)~~[reply
]

Delete Article has
significant coverage in reliable sources. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 23:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - The sourcing in the article serves to verify that Vas J Morgan exists and is a celebrity blogger; however the coverage is insubstantial and primarily just mentioning his name. I was unable to find any sources of more substance. -- Whpq (talk) 16:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails
Stuartyeates (talk) 07:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - blogger - no awards - nothing of note - promotion of a non independently notable person -
Off2riorob (talk) 15:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: Look, the GNG is pretty unambiguously written; it requires that subjects be written about in "significant detail" in multiple reliable sources. I challenge the Keep proponents to find any such sources. The whole reason in the first place for Wikipedia to have notability criteria is to establish a minimum standard which subjects must meet. This one doesn't meet any of them, short of a new WP:BARNACLE guideline to cover casual mentions of wannabe celeb hangers-on at starlet hangouts. Ravenswing 18:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vanispambullshitpuffery. Whoever wrote that "Personal life" section should be <past-participial phrase redacted>. Years ago I proposed a "namedropping" template. A dozen of them should go on this article. Drmies (talk) 23:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - practically a facebook page. Bearian (talk) 19:47, 11 October 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.