Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tip Donaldson

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. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:42, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tip Donaldson

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

Not yet notable per WP:NMODEL, WP:NACTOR, WP:NTENNIS, WP:NHOCKEY, or WP:BIO. In short, it's WP:Vanispamcruftisement, with an evident WP:Conflict of interest or WP:Autobiography judging by the amount of unsourced detail about his early life. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Proposed deletion contested by creator. Uncle Roy (talk) 19:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Uncle Roy (talk) 19:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Uncle Roy (talk) 19:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Uncle Roy (talk) 19:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Uncle Roy (talk) 19:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Uncle Roy (talk) 19:28, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete This should have gone through CSD, this reads like a really bad resume. Wikipedia isn't a web hosting service. South Nashua (talk) 19:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did think long and hard about CSD, but the article does make a "credible assertion of notability" with its (unsourced) mentions of film roles and modelling for well-known companies. Since there's nothing about these online, I can only guess that they were minor acting and modelling roles, probably uncredited. And you do have to wade through eight feet of treacle to find those small claims to notability. Uncle Roy (talk) 19:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the attempts weren't credible, but I can understand going through AFD vs CSD. Either way, this subject is nowhere near notable enough to warrant an article. South Nashua (talk) 20:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: So, this individual doesn't have any roles, but the reason he has a Wikipedia article is because he was signed with a talent agency and has interests? DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 19:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His roles are indeed small uncredited roles (acting as well as modeling), however the roles are legitimate and verifiable through the referenced channel on Twitch in the past broadcasts. Also, the article has more than just his interests and the talent agency signing, it also details his successful entertainment career online, which I believe is noteworthy enough by itself for an article. StevieWondersEyes (talk) 20:11, 24 May 2017 (UTC)— StevieWondersEyes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The references don't mention the individual and Twitch is not a reliable source. Quick question: are you Tip Donaldson? DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 21:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The individual is of course mentioned in the references (and quite obviously in the content he created himself). May I ask why Twitch is not a reliable source of information on the subject when it is of course related to the content on the site itself? I believe the argument in favor of his successful career still stands. Also please refrain from any accusations of vanity.StevieWondersEyes (talk) 22:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's very common on Wikipedia to check into a potential conflict of interest and/or autobiography, so you're going to have to get used to getting checked for that. For sourcing, you need reliable, 3rd party articles and not Wikia pages, YouTube videos and Twitch videos- utilize articles written about the individual. You should probably read this. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 22:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, and I understand why you may think that. However, when debating in an article for deletion, simply accusing one of vanity [to be avoided] as it is not valid reason for deletion. As for sources, the references are the best sources to be found when talking about that very subject. For example when talking about the success of his twitch, of course the best source will be the twitch page itself, etc. and of course any video should be referenced itself as the source and obviously more reliable than any articles written.StevieWondersEyes (talk) 23:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your rationale and I recognize that you have the grasp to be a compatible and reasonable contributor. However, COI is serious and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest explains in full detail why those associated with the subjects should be avoided-- I say this as a person who has to bar himself from editing pages about actors I know. So, I must ask, do you have a relation to Tip Donaldson to declare? DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 23:52, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No StevieWondersEyes (talk) 00:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then may I ask why you've uploaded this baby photo of him as your own work? Uncle Roy (talk) 02:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly fails notability for WP:NACTOR and WP:Bio. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 00:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete does not meet NACTOR. roles are not sufficient. Coverage not sufficient in terms of depth to met GNG. The article creator did a fine job with what he had, but subject just isn't notable. (If this is a case of WP:PAID, creator certainly earned his pay. The baby photo was just over the top, though.) It is a bit like Vanity Fair (magazine), isn't it. So, Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement it is.Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia isn't a place to advertise yourself. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:47, 2 June 2017 (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.