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. Mainly because of evidence that they meet GNG. A few comments: This is about the article Elijah Daniel, not about User:Sagecandor. Discussions about whether to repurpose the article to be about a book are more suited for a move request/talk page discussion. I'll tag the article as AfD-cleanup given some quality concerns listed here Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elijah Daniel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Declined prod SpinningSpark 12:50, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Wasn't a notable figure in 2012, still isn't a notable figure in 2017. His acts are barely middle-of-the-paper filler - remember WP:NOTPAPER. Merge the prank show stuff back into CollegeHumor and bin the rest. GR _{(Contact me) (See my edits)} 16:23, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This guys fails to be notable enough to have an article. The article is full of unreliable sources (social media, random blogs), manipulated sources, subjetivity (WP:NEUTRAL, and remember WP:NOTPAPER. I also see a clear case of WP:OWNERSHIP by user Sagecandor. The only notable thing about him is the Trump book he wrote and most of the reliable sources talk about it NOT about him as a "public figure". Anonpediann (talk) 14:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• User makes false assertions with zero evidence to back up their claims. Sagecandor (talk) 14:47, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just try to change things that shouldn't be on the article per WP:PAPER and you keep adding them. Told you social media and YT aren't reliable sources except in very exceptional cases and you put them again. Told you making a petition doesn't starts anyone's career, you reverted my changes. You don't let anyone change anything. Plus you try to hard to make him notable by adding more ad more content that makes no sense (Reception page is an example of it). Anonpediann (talk) 14:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why, in the middle of a deletion debate, you're actually complaining about expansion and improvements to the article. The article relies primarily on secondary sources now. We can use sources by the subject in the article about the subject himself. Sagecandor (talk) 14:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As if you didn't know, people keep reading this article (i suppose). You're the one creating the reception page and adding content (which is full of WP:NOTPAPER). Anonpediann (talk) 15:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the course of my research I discovered he won "Best Comedian" at the 9th Shorty Awards. [1] So yes, I'm glad I did my research on this article. Sagecandor (talk) 15:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Means nothing. As if wining that awards automaticaly gives him notability. There are Grammy winner who didn't even have a Wikipedia page. Anonpediann (talk) 15:30, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Shorty Awards are a notable awards show for which the subject of this article won the award, beating out several others for "Best Comedian", specifically for his comedy and his pranks. [2] If there are Grammy Winners who don't have a Wikipedia page, perhaps you could let us know? They'd likely all also be notable. Sagecandor (talk) 15:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If there's not enough reliable sources for covering a whole article, why? You are so wrong. Anonpediann (talk) 15:38, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Shorty Awards is notable. The 9th Shorty Awards is notable. The subject of this article won the Award for "Best Comedian", specifically for his comedy and his pranks. [3]. Much as you may wish, you cannot erase that fact from history. Sagecandor (talk) 15:41, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That the award has a poory writen article doesn't make it notable. Do you really think that an award with the category "Emoji of the Year" gives him credibility? Don't act like i'm trying to hide he fact that he's so notable and important on this society for wining a trashy award... Call me when he gets a American Comedy Awards nomination.Anonpediann (talk)

It has already been pointed out to you that the current state of quality of a Wikipedia article itself does not have to do with notability of the subject. Sagecandor (talk) 15:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But someone needs to be notable to have a Wikipedia article did you knew? Everytime you try to make him look notable with that poor arguments you forget about that current state you talk about true? Too funny. Oh and check this WP:Notability - "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article." Anonpediann (talk) 15:54, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and he is notable. As explained to you, by Timothyjosephwood, below. Sagecandor (talk) 15:57, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What i missed? He said sources plus most of this article's sources are unreliable (including social media). Anonpediann (talk) 15:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean, "what did I miss", not "what I missed". Sagecandor (talk) 16:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes sorry, but the point is most of this article's sources are unreliable (including social media). Anonpediann (talk) 16:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources include The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, GQ magazine, and VICE. Sagecandor (talk) 16:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But Hollywood Life, The Daily Dot and YouTube no. And not to say how you try to promote him in this article when a it should be a merely informative page. 19:44, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Not trying to promote anyone. Trying to NOT have the page be deleted. No more, no less. Sagecandor (talk) 19:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:31, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:31, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notable figure. Significant coverage at Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Notable author. Sagecandor (talk) 19:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sagecandor: Notable figure? Are you kidding? Tell me something he's done as notable that deserves to be covered on Wikipedia. Anonpediann (talk) 21:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No I'm not kidding. I wrote this with text based communications that does not allow for sarcasm. I try to be truthful in all my communications. Please let's all use better tone in our communications here. Thank you !!! Sagecandor (talk) 21:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sagecandor: "In 2013 Elijah created an official White House petition as a prank, in order to make Miley Cyrus's "Party in the U.S.A." the national anthem of the United States". This says it all. Anonpediann (talk) 21:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So anyone who ever tries to create a petition as a prank is instantly not notable in your opinion? Even if that was from an incident from four (4) years ago? And even if later, four (4) years later, they've done other later things that makes them more notable, since then? Sagecandor (talk) 21:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sagecandor: Making a prank is NOT NOTABLE. Not to make into a Wikipedia article. Anonpediann (talk) 21:57, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but his career spans more than one single prank, as noted at [4]. Sagecandor (talk) 14:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Any prank makes anyone notable. Anonpediann (talk) 15:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, not sure what you mean here, but in this case the coverage in secondary sources is of multiple different events over a period of years. Sagecandor (talk) 15:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the article is egregiously full of trivia. No notability. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. The current state of the article is not ideally related to the notability of the subject of the article. Sagecandor (talk) 22:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just just said above that is a "notable figure" and now you say that he doesn't need to be too notable to get an article? I can't see your point. Naming WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP to get a point when it has nothing to do with the post you just answered seems like you are trying to hard to null people's opinions to give more validation to yours. Anonpediann (talk) 10:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can't even understand this comment. The language used by the user is confusing in their posts. Sagecandor (talk) 14:03, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, if you really wants to make this article work you should delete most of it. Remember WP:NOTPAPER. Quantity is not equal quality. Making pranks is not an objetive subject to talk about in someone's "Carrer" section. Do you really think he's notable for making pranks or making a petition in the internet? His only notable thing is that "book" (if we can call it that).Anonpediann (talk) 15:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this user's repeated argument about "paper", agree with comment about this by Timothyjosephwood at DIFF. Sagecandor (talk) 15:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I meant Wikipedia:Too much detail. Sorry. Anonpediann (talk) 15:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You said the article is "not ideally related to the notability of the subject" are you trying to say with that that he's not notable but anyway it's okay for him to have an article because there's other "subjects"? I don't understand you. Plus what's the point on bringing up WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP when it has nothing to do with what the user you're answering is saying? Anonpediann (talk) 15:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've got it reversed. I said the current state of the article is not ideally related to the notability of the subject of the article. I have since improved the article itself anyways, so the issue is moot. Sagecandor (talk) 15:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: At notable awards, Shorty Awards, in category, Best Comedian, result was "Winner" after being nominated [5] and making it to be a finalist [6]. See link from official website: Winner in Comedy. Sagecandor (talk) 01:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Please note article has been expanded and improved: I've worked on research and expansion and improvement for this article. State before: link here. State after: (Improved Version after research and expansion process). Please keep this in mind when deciding the eventual fate of the article's existence on Wikipedia, thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 04:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 04:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 04:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 04:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 04:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 04:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 04:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 04:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 04:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 04:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 04:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 04:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 04:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 04:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Some of you really seem to hate this guy, but the widespread coverage of his book asserts enough notability for an article. It really doesn't matter if he's an attention whore or "just another attention seeking internet persona", there are a lot of respectable publications talking about him.— TAnthony^Talk 04:33, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per GNG. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because "Declined prod" is not a reason for deletion, and looking at the article currently at Elijah Daniel, I don't see any myself. — fourthords | =Λ= | 14:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per... sources? And... maybe a reminder that being a contested PROD in and of itself doesn't automatically mean you can skip WP:BEFORE and nominate with basically no deletion rationale. Just because an editor might personally think someone is largely a waste of good oxygen, doesn't mean they aren't notable. But if we decide some day that that's a valid reason for deletion please notify me because I'll be first in line to nominate every article that ends in or contains the word Kardashian. TimothyJosephWood 15:05, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Timothyjosephwood: Most of the sources talk about his book, not himself. Others are unreliable. Plus WP:NOTPAPER. Please, the page even talks about him making a petition on the internet. Annoying. Anonpediann (talk) 15:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTPAPER... You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means. Because it ain't got nothing to do with notability. Feel free to ping me back if you have an argument that is a valid deletion rationale. TimothyJosephWood 15:20, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Timothyjosephwood:I meant Wikipedia:Too much detail. Sorry. Anonpediann (talk) 15:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1) WP:TMI is essentially an essay, and not a policy or guideline, so it's more of... a suggestion. 2) Even if it was a policy/guideline, it relates to article content in the same way that WP:DUE does, and content issues are basically totally separate from deletion issues in all but very few situations where the status as a deletion rationale is explicit in the policy. These are cases where it is so pervasive and egregious that it renders the article either basically illegal (i.e., WP:COPYVIO / WP:G12, WP:G10) or essentially worthless with nothing of any value worth saving (e.g., WP:G11, WP:G1, WP:A1, WP:A3, WP:A10). An anyway, AFAIK, every deletion rationale that deals with article content is a speedy deletion rationale, and this just... isn't eligible for any of those.

The issue here is whether the subject has received sustained in-depth coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. If that's the case, then the article can basically be as poorly written as you can imagine, and still not qualify for deletion, because notability is an existential question about the nature of the subject (see also WP:NEXIST), and not a question of what is demonstrated by the content of the article. TimothyJosephWood 16:22, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Timothyjosephwood:Agreed. Unfortunately, Anonpediann seems unable or unwilling to acknowledge and understand your last sentence. "notability is an existential question about the nature of the subject (see also WP:NEXIST), and not a question of what is demonstrated by the content of the article." DIFF. Sagecandor (talk) 16:31, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Timothyjosephwood: @Sagecandor: well you're wrong. Even if the quality of the article is pretty questionable, i say "Delete" because i don't consider Daniel a not notable enough as i've been stating in all this discussion. Don't mix things up. Anonpediann (talk) 19:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pretty nuanced point actually, it just doesn't seem that way after a few hundred AfDs. TimothyJosephWood 16:43, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Timothyjosephwood:Unfortunately, if the article on Pope Francis was a poor quality stub, it would get deleted from Wikipedia as "not notable". Sagecandor (talk) 16:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nah. It's not a vote, and arguments not based on relevant policy don't count for anything. There's a few bumps here and there, but our admin corps understands that. TimothyJosephWood 16:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely hope you are right. Sagecandor (talk) 16:54, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The case for deletion is that the article is promotional in nature. I still support deletion, even after the changes. Due to previous disagreements I have had with Sagecandor, I am refraining from editing the article myself. However, the lede as written is filled with puffery; a top gay erotica book should not be described in Wikipedia's voice as an "Amazon Best Seller". Power~enwiki (talk) 18:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Cited, and attributed directly in text as such, to multiple different secondary sources, including The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, GQ magazine, and VICE. Sagecandor (talk) 18:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sagecandor: You have to learn to read the information and put it in a more objetive way. Obviously when a source makes an interview or something they are going to praise the subject. Copy paste is not always the answer. Anonpediann (talk) 19:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Anonpediann:You wrote, "You have to learn to read the information and put it in a more objetive way." Do you mean the word, "objective", or "objetive" ? Sagecandor (talk) 19:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sagecandor: Objective. Sorry i didn't know you never made mistakes. Trying to make fun of me says a lot of you as a person. Never said that with a bad intection oh sorry intention. Anonpediann (talk)

Merely pointing out that in the exact same comment where you advised me, "You have to learn to read", you are obviously not taking care to copyedit and proofread your own writings, here, on this page. Sagecandor (talk) 19:35, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly said it in a sarcastic way not even answering to the actual statement. Obviously english isn't my mother language. I do, but when i write a good objective article of a notable subject, something you failed to achieve. Anonpediann (talk) 19:44, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly insulted my ability to read, while displaying your inability to do same, with your own comments, before you save them. Sagecandor (talk) 19:47, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Insulted, not even tried. Just said that you have to put the subjective words of any article in your own words and make them objective. Misspelling a word has nothing to do with my ability to read. Anonpediann (talk) 20:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only route for deleting an article for being promotional is WP:G11. You can certainly try it if you would like, but G11 requires that there is basically nothing in the article that could conceivable be saved, and I don't think there's a snowball's chance in hell of G11 here. Other than that, AfD doesn't delete articles for tone, so this is as yet another argument for article improvement, and not for deletion. TimothyJosephWood 18:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DEL4 is "Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content"; spam is defined to include "adding references with the aim of promoting the author or the work being referenced." I'm not sure what the encyclopedic content is in this article. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:00, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are definitely WP:BLP violations as well ("BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement."); but with the level of self-promotion that Mr. Daniel engages in, they are probably all editing concerns and not reasons for deletion. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:00, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

subject to the condition that improvement or deletion of an offending section, if practical, is preferable to deletion of an entire page If it's pure advertising or promotion with no encyclopedic content and cannot be fixed by article improvement, then it should be nominated for G11, because that's basically verbatim what G11 is. Other than that, the type of spam that is referenced by your quote from WP:SPAM is usually when someone writes a book, and then tries to add it as a reference to every article they can think of. ...It... happens a lot.

Overall, tone is an argument for article improvement, and we don't delete articles that need improved; we improve them. TimothyJosephWood 19:20, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An article with this many comments at AfD can't be nominated for speedy deletion. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing preventing an article from being nominated for CSD, PROD and AfD all at the same time. TimothyJosephWood 19:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was already PRODed. The PROD was removed by Spinningspark [7], who then nominated it for deletion, here, at AfD. Sagecandor (talk) 19:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about a "hypothetical article". No, it can't be reprodded, but I've nominated plenty of articles for CSD while there was an AfD under way, in cases where the nominator doesn't quite understand CSD, and goes to AfD when it was CSD-worthy to begin with. Having said that, the issue is not that anyone is technically prevented from applying a CSD tag, but that it doesn't fall under CSD to begin with. TimothyJosephWood 19:38, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Sagecandor (talk) 19:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or rename for only notable work, and trim accordingly. This thing is should be out on the water, it's doing about 5 NOTs. Anmccaff (talk) 20:07, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elijah Daniel won "Best Comedian" at the Shorty Awards. [8] for his entire body of work, not any one particular work. Sagecandor (talk) 20:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good for him. Failed to make him notable. Anonpediann (talk) 20:15, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The award on its own maybe, maybe not. But the fact is it recognized the entire corpus of his body of work as a whole, and not any one individual work alone. Sagecandor (talk) 20:18, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Shorty Awards seem to have their own problems. Dunno if being mentioned by them is a plus or a minus. Anmccaff (talk) 20:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete with much respect for Timothyjosephwood, WP:N makes it clear that a failure of WP:NOT is a legitimate reason to exclude a subject from the encyclopedia even when a subject passes the GNG. I tried to rewrite it because I respected Sagecandor's attempts to improve the article. Unfortunately as written now, it would require a fundamental rewrite to be in compliance with WP:NOTPROMO and WP:NPOV. Effectively all of the content would need to be removed per WP:DON'T PRESERVE, since as it stands, it is written as an advertisement. I think this would be an acceptable deletion under either WP:DEL4 or WP:DEL14 depending on how bad you think the prose is. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:30, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry you feel that way. Reliable sources including The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, GQ magazine, and VICE -- are not promotional. @TonyBallioni:I've researched and wrote and tried very very very hard over many hours of effort to improve the page. I feel I've demonstrated notability with the significant expansion. I hope you can reconsider and come to realize that any issues with tone are an article improvement issue and not a reason to delete the entire thing and throw away all my research and improvement efforts, please. Sagecandor (talk) 20:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for you but you can't demonstrate that someone is notable when he isn't. He hasn't made any productive thing for this society and that may be the reason why. Anonpediann (talk)

Thank you. I've tried quite hard to demonstrate notability with hours upon hours of research, writing, and editing, and expansion of the article. Sagecandor (talk) 20:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:N and WP:DEL both allow exclusion based on the content of the article in addition to the content of the sourcing, and AFDISNOTCLEANUP is not policy, its an essay. As written now, the article reads as a promotional piece/CV for Mr. Daniel. It would need a fundamental rewrite to be encyclopedic. That is a reason under the deletion policy to delete the article regardless of sourcing. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @TonyBallioni:Please, I ask you to reconsider, please. I've put hours and hours into this. I've only reflected what the secondary sources themselves are saying, including The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, GQ magazine, and VICE. Tony, please, I ask you to please reconsider, please. Sagecandor (talk) 20:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I think you're wrong, but you're not going to hurt my feelings or anything. In the most extreme circumstance, if the subject is notable, and the article needs cleanup for tone, but isn't G11, then reducing to a stub is always a draconian but viable option, and a stub on a notable topic is preferable to nothing. After all, fixing the tone could have probably already been done with all the effort that's been put into this AfD. Since this is looking an awful lot like a no consensus par excellence, probably best to put in effort there, rather than here. TimothyJosephWood 21:07, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - extensive sources establishing notability. Cjhard (talk) 21:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets the GNG, whether we think the subject will stand the test of time or not. Miniapolis 22:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per improvements and demonstration of substantial coverage (lest we confuse future Elijah Danielologists). bd2412 T 00:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – The guy is annoying and the article is a promotional mess but he certainly seems notable. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per extensive conversations with Sagecandor on my talk page and the work he has done since I made my previous !votes, I believe that there is a reasonable chance that this article can be brought into line with our policy on NPOV. The prose has been rewritten to remove the quotes so it is cohesive and able to be edited to trim down the promotional language. I do think a lot more work is needed, and I encourage other editors to join the talk page conversation, but I am fine with keeping the article now. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your acknowledgement of my efforts to improve the article and my efforts to save the page. Sagecandor (talk) 03:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sagecandor: Still a mess. Full of trivia and the unreliable sources still up. If you want to keep it you should make it more simple. This shouldn't be a informative blog about every move this guy makes on the Internet. Feels like you're reading a fanpage or a ElijahDanielUpdates Twitter account, that's why most of us consider it promotional. As i said before quantity doesn't means quality. Anonpediann (talk) 10:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop commenting ad infinitum to every comment I make personally to other people at this AFD page. Sagecandor (talk) 16:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets WP:SIGCOV requirements.LM2000 (talk) 06:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: All the reliable sources used in the article are about the book Trump Temptations, and not the person himself. Shouldn't another article be created? The person is not notable by himself. Article is nothing but trivial facts that are all about that book. He won some sort of award for being a comedian, but I can't even see an independent separate source discussing it. Mymis (talk) 18:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes and no. He's most well known for his book, but there has been some other coverage. If the book article had been created first then there would likely be a good argument for not having an article for the author, however the author's page was created first and it's not uncommon for there to be an "either/or" scenario with authors and their book. It's not uncommon for editors to opt to have an article for the person rather than the book, especially if the person has received coverage for other things that almost but may not entirely justify an independent article. Having the author's page can sometimes make it easier to have a more complete overview of everything. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Obviously notable, with a book that has been discussed in many reliable sources, along with other notable activity also discussed in the media. Binksternet (talk) 22:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The subject matter appears to be notable, albeit with a poorly-composed Wikipedia article that is fluffed up, in the apparent hopes that it's suitable as a Good Article nominee. Therefore, I'll support its inclusion, but recommend that the GAN receives a quick fail, if not withdrawn before review. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 01:11, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Amply cited in RS references. SPECIFICO talk 01:28, 20 July 2017 (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.