Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandy Simpson

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. Legoktm (talk) 20:16, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Simpson

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

TL;DR: Unsourced biography, fails WP:GNG and Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Entertainers.

In somewhat more detail: This is a 3 sentence biography of an actor who has not had any starring roles, and possibly more important, has not had any indepth articles from unrelated reliable sources written about him. I looked. I had nominated the article for WP:BLPPROD, but that was reverted by User:GB fan with the comment that the IMDB link about him was a source - er - I don't think that qualifies as a reliable source, but let's discuss that here.

To give GB fan credit, our policy WP:BLPPROD is self contradictory, since it says, in consecutive sentences "To be eligible for a BLPPROD tag, the entry must be a biography of a living person and contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc., reliable or otherwise) supporting any statements made about the person in the biography. Unlike standard proposed deletion, the BLP deletion template may be removed only after the biography contains a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article." So does the source have to be reliable or not?

In any case, that's nitpicking about how the sausage was made. I think the article fails Wikipedia:Notability. Now if my Search-engine-fu was weak and I missed significant roles and/or indepth sources, I'll be only too happy; I like articles, and in fact, I will add a free image to the article from this video. But, unfortunately, I am reasonably experienced at this sort of thing and am fairly sure that they're not there, at least enough so for this nomination. --GRuban (talk) 14:06, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Science fiction and fantasy. Skynxnex (talk) 17:03, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the BLPPROD rules aren't contradictory. They were specifically designed to include UNsourced articles, and not let them out of BLPPROD jail until they were RELIABLY sourced. Now, as far as unreliably sourced BLPs? It would be reasonable to try and host an RFC to get the goalposts moved in that direction, but that has no bearing on this particular BLP, on whch I offer no opinion. Jclemens (talk) 17:10, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The policy on BLP prod is intentionally asymmetric. An IMDb link placed before the BLP prod exempts it from this form of deletion, but placed afterwards does not. (No opinion on article.) Espresso Addict (talk) 17:15, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, folks, that makes sense. Now, back to the AfD, already in progress... --GRuban (talk) 18:14, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: now that BLPProd question has been addressed
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:42, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sourcing found, even his roles listed seem trivial. Oaktree b (talk) 14:45, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks sources supporting that WP:NBIO is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:26, 18 November 2022 (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.