Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mitch Grayson

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. Secret ^account 01:39, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mitch Grayson (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)

Orphan article; person no longer works at ABC; no longer notable (if he ever was) Slac speak up! 08:52, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment wp:NTEMP Doesn't appear notable but the no longer notable argument is not a thing. Also there's no deletion flag on the page. Neonchameleon (talk) 13:40, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete article shows no evidence of notability and the article relies only on primary sources.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 13:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed, notability is not temporary; if a person was ever notable enough to get onto Wikipedia then they stay notable enough in perpetuity regardless of whether they stay in the public eye or fade in prominence later on. That said, this article doesn't particularly demonstrate that he was ever notable enough in the first place; its only sources are articles by him, not about him, and those don't count as reliable sources for an encyclopedia article. Delete, though of course if somebody ever manages to dig up sources about him to start a new article with things might be different. Bearcat (talk) 18:38, 11 December 2013 (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.