Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Harrell

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. Discarding the canvassed votes, and the accounts created to vote here, we're left with a P&G-based rough consensus to delete. Owen× ☎ 15:59, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Harrell

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Paul Harrell (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)

Satisfies WP:BIO1E, every single reliable source are documenting about his death; and the event isn't significant enough to have an entry for him. ToadetteEdit (talk) 15:41, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Theres no reason to delete his article and Id hardly call him not notable considering he got 1.35M subscribers by making content about firearms related education and entertainment on youtube. He might not have appeared on traditional news outlets before his death but using this as an excuse to delete his article doesnt make any sense considering the youtuber technoblade also passed away due to cancer and only appeared on major news outlets after his death. WhyIsEveryNameTakenIJustWannaBeNamedJoey (talk) 08:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, and maybe WP:BASIC. The coverage in the handful of sources isn't very substantial, a couple of news articles after one's death is not really "significant coverage", and basically the entire article is just about his death. Also, to address some other points here, there are more than 30,000 YouTube channels with over a million subscribers. They can't all be notable- one million subscribers is not what it once was in terms of channel size. Archimedes157 (talk) 21:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Paul Harrell was noteworthy in the sense that his style of teaching and communication was highly effective and far reaching. His depth of knowledge in two separate self-defense shootings as well as his experience in the Army & Marines provides ample accreditation. I would suggest expanding this article to include his background in the armed forces as well as the court documentation surrounding his successful use of self defense laws. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.111.41.238 (talk) 23:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Being knowledgeable and a good teacher is not itself notable enough for a Wikipedia article, nor is having served in the military. I’ve known many excellent teachers, almost none with wikipedia articles. Having successfully defended a self-defence claim is also not by itself notable as there are millions of examples across history and the globe of people who have successfully done so. Archimedes157 (talk) 21:26, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If anything, just remove unverifiable information and move on. Most of the sources contain information not just on his death but what he was notable for. As far as I see it, it meets WP:GNG and if deleted may cause questions to arise about similar articles. It also has a good content-to-source ratio, small articles like these exist elsewhere on the English Wikipedia and could be challenged if this is successfully deleted. Some examples include the area code he was in, and multiple other biographies with a similar amount of sources. NikolaiVektovich (talk) 02:43, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This Paul Harrell page has only been up a few days and most of the public have not had a chance to see it and add to it yet. Paul Harrell was a private person, and due to the self-defense shootings he was involved with, may have had restrictions on what he could discuss publicly. Now that he has died, those who knew him and have sources may want to add to this page. Deleting it now will prevent that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.233.166.189 (talk) 21:55, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Articles for deletion is not about the current state of the articles, but the potential for it to actually improve with the sources that exist out there. Is it possible that you can find currently existing sources about him that aren't just his death? TheWikiToby (talk) 22:05, 13 September 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Paul_Harrell&oldid=1246892322"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Harrell, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.