Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karl Jeno Schmid

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:32, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Jeno Schmid

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

Advertorially-toned WP:BLP of a television personality, not well-referenced as the subject of enough reliable source coverage about him to clear WP:GNG. This has been tagged for notability and sourcing problems since 2010, but until just a few weeks ago it remained "referenced" entirely to a linkfarm of links to non-notability-assisting unreliable sources, like his own LinkedIn and videoclips of him doing his own job on a user-generated video sharing site. Then in late March two real footnotes were finally added on the occasion of him coming out as HIV+ -- but one of those two footnotes is to a blog that cannot support notability at all, and the other is to a digital news organization that would probably be acceptable as one source in a mix of solid sources, but isn't well-established enough to confer a GNG pass all by itself as an article's only non-blog source. And if his HIV status is really the only thing about him that can be sourced anywhere independent of his own self-published web presence, then that just makes him a WP:BLP1E. So maybe this is just WP:TOOSOON for a person who might collect stronger coverage in the future -- but there's not enough sourcing here now to get him over GNG, and nothing stated in the article body is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to get over GNG. Bearcat (talk) 18:52, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:08, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:08, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:08, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My looking brings me to the same analysis and conclusion as NOM. Aoziwe (talk) 12:42, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 03:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree 100% with nom. Fails WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:12, 1 May 2018 (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.