Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian Stylezz

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. Notability not established. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:38, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Stylezz

Ian Stylezz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I know this is slightly BITEy, despite me attempting to help the user on their talk page, but this page should not have been moved out of the draft space. I only find one reliable source, but it's an interview. He has so far had one role in one show that has been more than one episode (and he was uncredited for it). Thus, it appears to be TOOSOON for Stylezz, as he fails NACTOR and GNG. The Article should be histmerged into the Draft, with encouragement to the creator to improve the page if and when new sources are published. Primefac (talk) 02:29, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:36, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:36, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Primefac (talk) He has been in more than one show and the show that you're referencing was a credited role on several episodes. He has been on several TV shows to include two movies. If you know that I am new as is trying. Why you so quick to try to delete and fight me on this. So far you have been the only person since Ive been trying who are persistant in denying and deleting...even after I've had countless of help to get this far by other administrators and users. Isn't the Bitey rules states (New members are prospective contributors and are therefore Wikipedia's most valuable resource. We must treat newcomers with kindness and patience—nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility. It is very unlikely for a newcomer to be completely familiar with Wikipedia's markup language and its myriad policies, guidelines, and community standards when they start editing.) WbPubEnt (talk) 03:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see that FB have him verified as a public figure actor/director..
https://m.facebook.com/Ian-Stylezz-170633976294322/ WbPubEnt (talk) 03:36, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've left more comments on your talk page, WbPubEnt, but there are some AFD-relevant comments I'll respond to here.
I'll admit that I was going off of the IMDb page for his credits, which list him as "uncredited" for his role in Army Wives (which seems to be his only major role). He might have been credited for other roles, but simply being in a film does not make a person notable. There needs to be significant coverage about a person for them to merit having an article on Wikipedia.
Second, I am quick to delete this Article, not the Draft. Please take note of this. I have no issues with you continuing to work on the draft page, and hopefully at some point it will be acceptable per the Golden Rule.
As for the biting thing, I have now responded on your talk page about the minor confusion when you created the Article while I was still referring to the Draft. Hopefully you can see how I was attempting to help on a page that wasn't actively being worked on.
To summarize, you were told (via the AFC process) that the page wasn't ready, and yet you created it anyway, and so I created the AFD. Primefac (talk) 04:49, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Primefac (talk) I was told via the AFC process by you that my initial pages wasn't ready and to submit a corrected standard through the help area (forgive me for I don't know the exact name of that area right now) to have it review and corrected before I posted. I did and once I got all the feed backs and corrections by other administrators, all I was told to do is to add references which I did and resubmitted. It was approved and now your telling me that you believe it shouldnt. I really appreciated all your help and remembered your comments in the past but everything you asked me to do I did and now you saying there are other issues after correcting every issue you pointed out before. PLEASE don't read into this as being ungrateful because I am TRULY grateful BUT there is an issue at every turn when I correct whatever you asked me to correct. Please reference our multiple conversations on my talk page. WbPubEnt (talk) 12:13, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:28, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Primefac (talk) I see that the discussion has been relisted after a 9 day holding period. Wikipedia states that "Relisting debates repeatedly in the hope of getting sufficient participation is not recommended, and while having a deletion notice on a page is not harmful, its presence over several weeks can become disheartening for its editors". This has been the case with me and your persistance in fighting the creation of this page for whatever reason(s). It went on to say that, "Therefore, in general, debates should not be relisted more than twice". It is obvious that no other administrators feel the same as you do ESP after the corrections that I've been instructed to make and the approval by them to have the page listed. For this cause and the month long conversations/debates with you and your persistance to have the page shut down, I request that the deletion notice to be removed because the page satisfied all guidelines and was approved and corrected by a Wikipedia administrator for publication. Thanks in advance. WbPubEnt (talk) 04:09, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete I removed all the references except for one. The deleted references did not even mention the article subject! Entirely lacks significant independent critical coveage of the subject by 3rd parties. Article has been worked on, so I assume better sources are not available.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 04:11, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep I added new references after the article was gutted by another editor. Some of those refs did need to be removed because they were not specifically about the article subject, others not. It is never a good AGF practice to gut an article while it is at AFD. Let the community decide and discuss and see the article as it was written at the time of the AFD nomination. If the community comes to a consensus that it should be deleted, it will be. With the new references added since the gutting, the article passes WP:GNG and has achieved notability. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 04:25, 3 July 2016 (UTC)Blocked sock. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 06:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you've added is all that helpful, given that the references as they currently stand are 1) what looks to be the Polish version of IMDb, 2) his CV, and 3) a reasonably-decent-but-mostly-interview article about him. None of these references demonstrate passing of GNG, and even if we consider #3 as valid, you would need probably need a minimum of two more solid sources to be acceptable. Primefac (talk) 05:24, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:53, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, neither of the sources added are WP:RS. One is the actor's head shot sheet, the other a Polish IMDB page. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 15:26, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ....this article is well within the guidelines of Wikipedia. Primefac (talk) you have TOTALLY discouraged me from making the other two pages that I was going to make. You states that I've broken the guidelines, well Wikipedia states that "Relisting debates repeatedly in the hope of getting sufficient participation is not recommended, and while having a deletion notice on a page is not harmful, its presence over several weeks can become disheartening for its editors" and is not acceptable. At 16:15, on the 30th of May 2016 (UTC) you stated that there were no WP:RS....they were added. On the same day you said there were no WP:42 and that his IMDb couldn't be used. Well under that section it speaks very clear about using a Reliable Source with Significant Coverage that are independent of the topic. Under the heading of "Independent Sources", it speaks about what could be use. According to the instructions, the IMDb page which is independent from the subject and can be verified by reaching out to their help page to see if the information is correct. You could even reach out to the production companies to see if the listings is real, so it could be used. Other reliable source from out of country has been used and you disputed them as well. At 15:16, on the 17th of June 2016 (UTC) you said that IMDb is never acceptable as a reference (and only acceptable as an external link). Well the afore mentions refutes that theory. Your definition of a reliable source isn't within what I've read for Wikipedia, it more line up with what you personally think it should be. IMDb could be accepted because it is not a page that was made by the subject but by an outside source that is not within the subject ability to influence. Even the subject SAG/AFTRA page is a recognizable website in the industry of Film/TV that will ONLY include recognizable actors due to it strict guidelines and verification. According to their website you can only become a member if they verified that the subject have been on or in a National television show or movie. Same with his Facebook Fanpage and the blue check mark verifying his public notoriety. This can't be done by request but by the company own investigation of the subject. At 02:29, on the 19th of June 2016 (UTC) you listed the page as an Article for Discussion to Delete and included it in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 at 02:36, on the 19th of June 2016 (UTC) as well as in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 at 02:36, on the 19th of June 2016 (UTC). No comments was made to delete the page within that seven day period so you relisted at 09:28, on the 26th of June 2016 (UTC) in the North America1000 to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus for the second time. No comment was made until 04:11, on the 3rd of July 2016 (UTC) by HappyValleyEditor (talk) who said to the references was deleted because it didn't mentioned the subject. If it was read in its entirety and the links that was associated with the references was click, you would see that the subject WAS mentioned. I could be wrong but it seems as if at the last minute you request a review by another to ensure your quest to delete stick. The constant posting is against Wikipedia guidelines because it says that re-posting a post to gain a favorable consensus is NOT warranted nor acceptable because it discourages new users and it looks bad in whole. At 04:53, on the 3rd of July 2016 (UTC) you relisted the discussion for the 3rd time in the North America1000 to gain what you want. Also, the article that is on the page now that says (in polish) means that it was written in Poland, not that the article was polished itself. This is getting excessive. I thank you for you help and really appreciate it but I think this is a little deeper than what it meets the eyes so I probably will use the Arbitration Committee review WP:AN/I WP:ANI WP:AIN to get a resolve since it's been going on for almost three weeks now. I want to thank Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant and everyone else who has assist, used their knowledge and fought to keep this page active. WbPubEnt (talk) 03:47, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*comment Please know that you are welcome WbPubEnt Please let me know if you have any questions or need any assistance. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 04:08, 5 July 2016 (UTC)Blocked sock. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 06:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  1. I tried looking for reliable independent secondary sources and literally found none except for this article in a community newspaper in Gooze Creek, South Carolina. This is not enough. In addition, we usually do not use local newspapers as to prove notability. I also had a look at the sources in the article This is a reprint of the same article above, this is a profile at SAGAFTRA (not a secondary source), and this is user generated content similar to IMDb. This newsletter is published by the same church the suject goes to, so it is not an independent source.
  2. NACTOR is not satisfied as there does not seem to be major roles in multiple notable films
  3. I just noticed that the article was rejected at AFC with similar concerns. See Draft:Ian Stylezz. Creating this article in mainspace, despite being rejected at AFC is gaming the system. It should be noted that previous attempts to bypass AFC has resulted in articles being deleted (See this as an example).
  4. Since a draft already exists, this article can be safely deleted. I encourage WbPubEnt to work on the draft, improve the sourcing and submit it to AFC. In addition, I would also like if any details about a conflict of interest are disclosed.
Overall, delete for me unless someone can show me the sources. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lemongirl942 (talk) You said "we" Wikipedia NEVER uses a local newspaper article as to prove notability. Is there a difference between a "Local" and "National" newspaper other than distance? There are Thousands if not Millions of Wikipedia pages that has them. As for the church newsletter, you said it is not an independent source. Just because the subject goes to a church "body" doesn't necessarily states that he/she insisted that a write up be made of them. That was an article associated with a religion "body" as a whole not a specific church. These type of stuff is done to show notoriety of the subject and could be an independent source according to the interpreter. WbPubEnt (talk) 05:03, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi WbPubEnt. I understand that you are a new editor. Let me try to explain it. In Wikipedia we take decisions by WP:CONSENSUS. Consensus is that local newspapers are usually not used for notability purposes. Publishing an article in Wikipedia has 2 steps: 1. We find out if the subject is notable. 2. We write the article and insert references. I am referring to step 1 here. For the purpose of establishing notability we don't use local sources as they have a very small circulation and their editorial independence is often questioned. A newspaper with a wider circulation means that more people know about the subject, and this translates to a higher chance of notability. Thus NYTimes is a good source. For step 1, we use "reliable secondary sources, independent of the subject". The church newsletter is from the same church where the subject is a minister. Notability is an indication of how "other (third party) people perceive the subject, not people associated with the subject". Unfortunately, over here it just doesn't pass. It may happen in the future, but right now unfortunately it doesn't. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lemongirl942 (talk) Thanks for breaking it down, esp with the newspaper and its wider circulation. Question for knowledge, In your prior comment, you found the same article attached to several of the state of South Carolina newspapers. Doesn't this consider a larger circulation versus a little mom and pop newspaper since it can be reached by the 4.5 million SC residence and others outside the state? I wish there were a counter on these things to tell who it reach, where it reached and how many people who would consider it to be a popular topic or not to satisfy the Wikipedia administrators standards. What isn't notable to one doesn't mean its not notable to others and for a handful of people to think that it shouldn't be listed is ludicrous. I see articles in Wikipedia that definitely has nothing to do with anything (i.e. these made up slang's...just to name one) and here is an obvious real actor who has been on multiple shows (that any of us can look at) and the argument is about how many times he been on each show....I think it's a little much but we pick and choose our battles. Again, thanks for the response and explanation. WbPubEnt (talk) 05:44, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the Keep votes are not particularly convincing how this can actually, not only be substantially improved, but also convincing for the applicable notability. The levels of questionability here are enough to delete. SwisterTwister talk 06:36, 12 July 2016 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ian_Stylezz&oldid=1089529424"