Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dillon William Hill

Dillon William Hill

Dillon William Hill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Dillon is too early in his marketing career and has received some coverage due to his One List One Life marketing campaign in 2017. If the marketing campaign was notable then we should create an article about the campaign. He fails WP:GNG. GarciaH1978 (talk) 00:44, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Video games, Advertising, Arizona, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:22, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep: Hill easily passes GNG. The PC Gamer source is a full article that goes into his life, and the other sources regarding his friend focus on his career. The Wikipedia article could probably do with some expansion, but I believe there is satisfactory and strong WP:SIGCOV for a WP:BLP here. 11WB (talk) 16:55, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

  Comment: But the PC Gamer source reads like an interview. SatnaamIN (talk) 01:52, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

  There is enough original reporting for it not to be considered fully WP:PRIMARY. 11WB (talk) 07:12, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep: By a running WP:BEFORE check, it's obvious that the subject of the article passes WP:GNG.Knitsozark (talk) 05:47, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
• Weak keep based on what's available and to avoid feeding our critics. Bearian (talk) 06:49, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. All coverage is related to his leukemia campaign in 2017; we also have one interview from 2025. Kelob2678 (talk) 07:49, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:34, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete: Seems WP:MILL, WP:BLP1E, and WP:RESUME. Despite the number of sources, I don't think the subject matter rises above what is otherwise a feel-good human interest story. Most events documented revolves around the subject and these two non-profits that he founded when he was in school, neither of which has an enduring impact. -- BriefEdits (talk) 17:18, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

  What might you mean by Most events documented revolves around the subject? The article under discussion is about the subject. ~ A412 ^talk! 02:57, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

  Ah I can see how the wording sounds off. For clarification, I meant to say that the core of the article revolves around the subject and his relationship with the two non-profits, neither of would have merited their own pages. -- BriefEdits (talk) 04:09, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep: The subject easily meets WP:GNG. The coverage is not a single passing mention. It includes multiple independent, reliable sources with in-depth reporting over time, including national outlets, about activity that has had sustained public impact. That is exactly the type of sourcing Wikipedia expects for a standalone biography. I also do not see this as a WP:BLP1E or WP:MILL situation. This is not “one isolated event” that briefly put the subject in the news and then disappeared. The event in question is better understood as a catalyst for ongoing, sustained activity, which is what the secondary coverage is actually documenting. Finally, the WP:RESUME concern is a content and style issue, not a notability issue. Even if parts of the article read like a CV, that’s an argument for rewriting and trimming per Wikipedia’s tone and due weight expectations, not deletion of a topic that otherwise has independent in depth coverage.~2026-22585-89 (talk) 04:44, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:37, 26 April 2026 (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.