Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chicken John

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. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 01:26, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken John

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

Self-Promotional, and not-notable outside of the "burning man community" and his own promotional affairs. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 14:14, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. He's gotten a fair amount of coverage (as a GNews search will reflect)[1] and while much of it was for an unsuccessful mayoral run, e.g.[2] that's not all, e.g.[3][4]. I tend to think he qualifies as a notable activist/eccentric. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass GNG. Unsuccessful mayoral run does not meet wiki standards. Hillabear10 (talk) 17:13, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:POLITICIAN would suggest notability criteria is not met. On another note, the template on the page does not link to this AFD for some reason... Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 19:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete has not received enough significant coverage in reliable independent sources to warrant a page. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 01:54, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. & others. Not enough coverage in secondary RS's to pass WP:BIO or WP:POLITICIAN.--JayJasper (talk) 05:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the nomination.--Juristicweb (talk) 03:39, 26 August 2012 (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.