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.
10 is IMdb, which is not a reliable or notability-supporting source, and #2 is a 67-word blurb in a listicle, which is not substantive enough to count as a GNG-supporting source if it's very nearly the best source on offer. So the only one that's actually starting to get us somewhere is #1, Gay Star News, which is not enough coverage to pass the "notable because media coverage" bar all by itself either.
Bearcat (
talk)
20:42, 23 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. While I do share the concerns expressed above about whether the nominator is acting in good faith or not (see also
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/More of Our Stupid Noise (2nd nomination), in which I expressed doubts about the same editor), the sourcing here just isn't cutting it. By far the majority of the footnotes are
primary sources that are not support for notability at all, and even the few that are real media mostly still just namecheck AJ Mattioli's existence without being about AJ Mattioli to any non-trivial degree. There's only one source here that's substantive enough to start getting us somewhere, but that's not enough all by itself, and nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt AJ Mattioli from having to have a lot more than just one notability-building source.
Bearcat (
talk)
20:49, 23 June 2020 (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.