Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joey Bond
I am for now |AGFing on that "more sources to follow" claim, although everything in the article as it is now screams "promotional" and "non-encyclopedic". As we stand, no sufficient coverage of this subject in independent outlets (a requirement, not an option) was provided, much of the info is unsourced (but is of the kind that would be accessible to Mr. Bond and other people doing his PR), and the sources that were cited can only stay if they can be said to round a text that is otherwise backed by ''secondary'' sources (see ). And no, a supposed one-time homage by Obama doesn't establish notability; neither does a passing mention in a newspaper of record. Instead of wasting the community's time with ''canvassing'' and echo-chamber debates such as the above, you could provide in the article itself the sources that establish why Mr. Bond is worth an encyclopedic entry, not just how oh-so-cool he is. As for the toxic insinuations against Biruitorul: he is doing the commendable job of acting as a filter for articles that may not meet wikipedia requirements, and he should't have to stand for this nonsense. If you wonder why and how he got to this pretty article of yours, it is probably the same way I did: by checking out the new articles on Romanian topics, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Romania/Bots filtered by the community bots
— User:Dahn, 19:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:AGF||WP:PSTS (Wikipedia:Assume good faith)