Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duke St. Rollins

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Duke St. Rollins

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Duke St. Rollins (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)

An internet troll who recieved some very sparse coverage (exactly three articles, which are the page's only citations) from news outlets for trolling politicians back in 2012. He does not pass WP:PERSON and, if he does, then almost any other internet troll whose antics have gotten them a news article or two deserves a page as well. Additionally, the page reads as a WP:NPOV violation, as if it was created by a supporter of St. Rollins's who created the page out of liking and agreeing him instead of any claim to notability that he might have. HAWTH OFF HEAD TALK 19:47, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:05, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:05, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:05, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

• Delete WP:TOOSOON. There is not RS coverage for this subject, and I cannot see that this person has any significant online following. Lightburst (talk) 20:13, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

• Delete This level of coverage in no way justifies an article. I hate to see what would happen if we allowed every article that had this much coverage. The need to keep up coverage would be unsustainable. This would open the flood gates to truly crazy levels of articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:46, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
• Delete: Barely found anything about him. Easily fails WP:BIO. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 17:17, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
• Delete - run of the mill micro-blogger, one of millions. 17:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC).

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.