Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Troy Johnson (writer)

:{{la|Troy Johnson (writer)}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Troy_Johnson_(writer) Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Troy Johnson (writer)}})

He fails WPGNG. --IAWI (talk) 06:53, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep This is among of the worst nominations I have ever seen. This rationale is terrible and has no substance. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 06:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:03, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:03, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:03, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

:I had just speedy close another of the nomination from this user, but this don't have good sources. So it's still valid nomination IMO. --Quek157 (talk) 16:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

• Delete As happy as I would be to close this in DENY, subject fails GNG and NAUTHOr. (lame as "fails GNG" is for a rationale its a lot better than any of his "relevance" rationales) ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:46, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Anyone who wants to edit that Troy Johnson article, feel free to do so. I think there were some errors on the references part (and that's the only reason I can think that this page was, I guess, flagged?) I don't think the page should be deleted because the guy is a judge on a long running show, he's been on Food Network several times, and a few other 'Guy's Grocery Games' judges have their own wikipedia page which is even shorter and less detailed than the one I made (so if you delete Troy Johnson, consider also deleting Madison Cowan).

He has a twitter. Maybe someone could ask him if he's worth having a wiki page about him. I don't have a twitter so I cannot ask. I don't even know if anyone is reading this or if I'm posting in the correct spot. I don't really make full blown pages on wikipedia but since no one else was going to, I did it. SunnieSkye (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

:{{ping|SunnieSkye}} You don't ask someone if they think they are worth having an article. That's not how Wikipedia works. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 04:17, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I was being a bit tongue in cheek with that comment, I guess. But seriously, I tried to source as best as I could and there's not much about him online (believe me, I looked) so the only thing I can think of is to ask him directly on twitter for details and "first-hand sources" but I guess Twitter doesn't count? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SunnieSkye (talk • contribs) 17:43, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

• Keep. The article is terrible, but the deletion nomination is even worse. The sourcing is lousy, mostly for lack of independence, but there's still enough there to create a presumption of notability that the cursory nomination does exactly nothing to refute. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:48, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

:{{ping|Hullaballoo Wolfowitz}} The original rationale that the nominator put was "not relevant to Wikipedia." It was changed to what it is now. But that doesn't make it any better. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 14:27, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

• Weak Keep Some more specific references would be good here, but I think this article can be improved given what's already there. Calm Omaha (talk) 19:41, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
• Keep The editor who nominated this was blocked. Should be improved, but kept.--JAMillerKC (talk) 16:45, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
• Keep - Improved article with reliable sources, did some cleanup, and added Talk page. The article still needs work and better sourcing. Nevertheless, the article's subject passes notability. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 09:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
• Keep , with thanks to AuthorAuthor.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:19, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.