Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kieran Max Goodwin

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:24, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Kieran Max Goodwin (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)

• Delete WP:BLP of a businessperson and blogger, which makes no particularly strong claim of notability — it basically just asserts that he exists, and reads far more like the kind of PR profile one might expect to find on his own website than like an actual encyclopedia article. Further, the referencing here is far too strongly reliant on primary, user-generated and other unreliable sources — the websites of directly affiliated organizations, calendars of event listings, his IMDB profile, etc. — with the few properly reliable sources not being sufficient in number, nor substantively enough about him in most cases, to get him over WP:GNG in lieu of any subject-specific inclusion criterion. Bearcat (talk) 14:57, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep. Notable sources including IMDb and VEVO. Oldcaged (talk) 23:03, 6 December 2015 (UTC) [reply]

— Oldcaged (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked sock. FuriouslySerene (talk) 06:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb and Vevo are not reliable sources; they're user-generated sources which cannot support notability in a BLP, because they don't constitute media coverage about him. Bearcat (talk) 01:54, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep. A well known athlete in swimming^[1][2]. I agree, he is notable. Rosyangel121 (talk) 23:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC) [reply]

— Rosyangel1121 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked sock. FuriouslySerene (talk) 06:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep. It's a tricky one, I think he has notability definitely, but not sure if it's enough. I do agree though slightly with the above comments, he has got references on high profile websites including Vevo and IMDb, plus his swimming career is clearly stated on the UK governing body for swimming, British Swimming. Helloradiant (talk) 23:28, 6 December 2015 (UTC) [reply]

— Helloradiant (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked sock. FuriouslySerene (talk) 06:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment. The individual seems to have the support from high profile people (Ben Patrick Johnson) and (Stedman Pearson) which is stated in the original article submission. Surly this should indicate some kind of notability on top of everything else. I'd suggest to keep the article. The individual believe will grow drastically with other notable sources popping up, which can then be added as of when they are published. Removing the article would result in starting this all over again. He does have notable sources like mentioned above from high profile websites. Mechanicinformal (talk) 00:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC) [reply]

— Mechanicinformal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked sock. FuriouslySerene (talk) 06:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment. Glad others agree. Oldcaged (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)Blocked sock. FuriouslySerene (talk) 06:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Based on this this revision, Dragonfly009 appears to be the subject of the article. I don't know if that's relevant here or not. Also, I've withdrawn my keep rationale intentionally. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 12:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - reviewed cited sources and did not find significant secondary coverage. A brief search suggests to me that the required coverage is not likely to be found. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 04:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - citations provided clearly do not establish notability. I couldn't turn up anything better either. Based on the above votes, wondering if a sockpuppet investigation is in order. FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:38, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've submitted them to SPI. FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:42, 10 December 2015 (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.