Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peachy Keenan

Peachy Keenan

Peachy Keenan (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)

Subject is a non-notable cultural commentator. Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR as sources are primarily routine book mentions or partisan interviews. Article is an orphan with zero biographical depth. Mergle (talk) 17:48, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per rationale given. The reason accompanying the PROD removal was akin to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Yue🌙 (talk) 20:23, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  The reason accompanying the PROD removal was "I think this should probably go through AfD if there is an objection to its inclusion (sorry)", actually—so thanks for bringing it here. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 03:33, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep The subject has received detailed coverage in The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Daily Telegraph, and has had multiple book reviews. These are not routine mentions or partisan interviews. Thriley (talk) 20:34, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
• Comment @Cl3phact0: since you removed the deletion tag back in March, perhaps you would like to weigh in here? Thriley (talk) 20:36, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  A courtesy link to this discussion could also be placed on WP:WIRED Talk too. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 03:18, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep as the subject meets GNG. Even if the article is short and orphaned it still meets GNG. It can be expanded and linked elsewhere - deletion is not cleanup. I am not a fan of the views that Peachy Keenan presents but the subject is notable. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 01:47, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep regardless of one's personal point of view, the subject clearly meets GNG and is a well know commentator in certain circles. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 03:13, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: There's an interesting article about the subject on the The Heritage Foundation website (A Domestic Activist Makes Her Case, 18 October 2023). Apparently this domain is blocked, so it can't be used as a source in our article, but the fact that the article exists tells us something about the subject's WP:N (again, in certain circles—which, regardless of their status here in our community, clearly exist in the world out there beyond the walls of our citadel). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 04:00, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

  tells us something about the subject's WP:N

  Well...it's kind of the opposite, given that non-RS are explicitly prohibited from contributing to WP:N.... JoelleJay (talk) 16:50, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

  The fact that the article can't even be linked for context tells us something about our own biases too, alas. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 13:00, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:37, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Conservatism, United States of America, and California. AaronNealLucas (talk) 17:10, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: In these discussions, I don't know what (if any) "official" weight we give to the existence of a Google Knowledge Graph ID for a given subject—however, in my mind the existence of this resource indicates something about notability (see Peachy Keenan: P2671). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 13:40, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  One of the GKGID sources is Wikipedia, so this is quite possibly citogenesis. pburka (talk) 22:21, 5 July 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.