Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhys Paul Hovey

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 Marasmusine (talk) 12:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rhys Paul Hovey

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

There are a number of things wrong with this article. The main issues are around WP:BIO, WP:V and WP:NOTE. With a rigorous edit (which this needs to weed out the weasel wording and POV language), we wouldn't be left with much. His only real claim to notability is as a video game designer, but the only sources provided are blogs. The only source that has any merit is from the CBC, which is a short profile on a band for which he claims short-term membership. However, the link does not mention his name. The rest of the sources are blogs or sites with a connection to Hovey. Outside of gaming, he has no notability and the article actually says this: he's an artist in "several mediums, (mostly independent)...". So, pretty much everything he's done is self-published or independent. The other issue is around WP:COI and possible sockpuppetry. Three editors have worked on this article. The images are uploaded and claimed by the artist himself, RhysPaulHovey. One of the images, however, is claimed by a different editor, Marnphanarmph but it is a work (a short film) that is supposedly by the artist, or at the very least, by someone with a connection to the artist. Finally, an IP address is used which is clearly the same editor. I think a sockpuppet investigation is unnecessary at this moment as the main issues around notability are clear enough. In addition to the google, new and scholar searches revealing nothing, a regular google search reveals 405 hits, all blogs, personal sites and wikipedia and assorted mirrors. freshacconci talktalk 13:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —freshacconci talktalk 13:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Marasmusine (talk) 09:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Delete" - At the very least, it's clear he doesn't belong under visual arts. But a google search quickly supports his lack of notability and reliable third party sources. Deadchildstar (talk) 17:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Deadchildstar.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 20:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even the CBC page is user-submitted content. Hairhorn (talk) 01:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and checkuser author per nom, altough nominator do not suggest it. The Junk Police (reports|works) 09:34, 13 August 2009 (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.