Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freddy McKinney

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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Freddy McKinney

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

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

This article is about a storm chaser who received temporarily media coverage for being first on the scene of a destroyed home where all the occupants were severely injured and he rushed them to the hospital. This is the only notable coverage he has ever received. This article fails notability guidelines, specifically WP:1E, and should be deleted. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 17:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:14, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A burst of coverage in the last 10 days around his rescue of the family, but nothing outside that event found besides brief mentions in one or two articles for the last few years. Likely PROMO, but nothing found for this youtuber. Oaktree b (talk) 18:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Television, Environment, Internet, and Nebraska. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well, no, isn't there significant coverage of the subject here and here? If we're looking for a person to be notable, then the sources should have at least several paragraphs in reliable sources. Here, McKinney isn't just notable for his rescue of a Texas family. There's coverage of him before that as per above; I think that with the enough coverage provided in the article's reliable sources, McKinney should meet WP:GNG! ~ Tails Wx (🐾, ⛈️) 20:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first one is a bit local. Hopefully someone here can provide the link to the relevant policy on these not counting towards GNG. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:47, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – independent significant coverage is limited to interviews from local media, with one of the sources linked above detailing McKinney as part of a broader story on storm chasers, and the other being an interview carried out by the news station partnering with them (which may very well be promotional), putting the significant coverage and independent prongs of WP:GNG into question. These aren't much different than, say, local human-interest stories about a local restaurant owner, which would generally be insufficient to satisfy notability guidelines. Not really any good targets for a merge, so deletion seems apt here. —TheAustinMan^{(Talk ⬩ Edits)} 03:09, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete While I do know of him outside of the recent coverage burst, he honestly isn't very notable. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 11:34, 21 May 2024 (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.