Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Gardner (Actor)

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. This article does not stand the proverbial snowball's chance. Whilst the discussion here was going on, the article subject was editing it via multiple accounts, now checkuser confirmed, with promotional content and falsified sources. (I checked several of them out. No such articles had been published, let alone mentioned this subject.) Autobiography, blatant self-promotion, falsification of content. It's only not copyright violation as well, the content coming word-for-word from the subject's self-promotional blurb elsewhere, because clearly the copyright owner was providing xyr own autobiography. This was well over the line. Uncle G (talk) 22:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Gardner (Actor)[edit]

[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)

Fails NACTOR and GNG. As far as I can tell the "multiple Feature Films" he "rose to prominence for" are as background actors. —teb728 t c 17:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —teb728 t c 17:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7 and G11 for WP:AUTOBIOG. I'm not sure why we didn't just go that route? Praxidicae (talk) 17:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - This is a pretty clear case of someone writing an article about themselves, with absolutely no indication of notability. It looks like the article was tagged for Speedy Deletion, but that was accidentally removed when it was also nominated for an AFD right about the same time. This AFD is really not necessary, at this point, and it should just be closed and Speedied. Rorshacma (talk) 17:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete I am the article who CSD this. It is promotional and created by Gardner. His career is tiddly squat too. A7 fits in my opinion....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete--I renominated it. Teb728, I wonder if you removed that tag accidentally. It's a perfect fit. Drmies (talk) 18:02, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Twinkle removed it. It asked if I wanted to take down my BLPPROD or cancel my AFD, so I said yes. The speedy wasn't there when I started the AFD. I chose to nominate it for AFD rather than A7 because it made a claim of prominence for multiple feature films; I though it easier to explain that that claim was not credible in an AFD. —teb728 t c 18:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - No problem. I just asked at your talk wondering why. Didn't mean to give an impression that I was being critical....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I declined the A7 because there arguably was an assertion of significance. However, the only source is his page on Backstage.com, which I take to be self-published. His only roles have been as background actors. He's just not notable as an actor yet at this point in his career. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply @ONUnicorn: This page could be speedy deleted per G11 as promotional. In draft versions of the article were twice deleted for just that reason. Not also this editor keeps adding his name here. Gardner is here to promote himself....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - WilliamJE The criteria for Speedy Deletion are meant to be applied strictly. "Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases." Many of the CSD criteria emphasize that, and G11 is one of them. It only applies to unambiguous advertising that is "exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten". I agree that, based on the fact that the username and article title match and the subject of the article is obviously not notable, this is 99.99% likely to be intended for promotional purposes, but the text does not read as unambiguous advertising or promotion, therefore I would decline a G11 deletion also. Lastly, since the article creator is still around and has also created this in draft (where it was speedy deleted), I'm inclined to think that if this were speedy deleted it would be rapidly recreated. I could salt it, but I'd prefer to have a deletion discussion to point to if I were to salt the article. Besides, with him being around, perhaps he will care to read and/or participate in the AFD, and in the process hopefully learn and understand what Wikipedia is looking for in a way that he will not by having his efforts summarily deleted without discussion. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:27, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree with everything that ONUnicorn said and would add, "Any article that describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify" for G11. With the exception of the claim that he "rose to prominence" the article was written from a neutral point of view (and was frankly boring). Removing that claim does not require a fundamental rewrite. —teb728 t c 20:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete While I understand ONUnicorn's rationale for declining the A7, I don't see being in multiple films as a self-described background character as meeting WP:NACTOR: "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.", emphasis mine. Further, the only source appears to be a self-published profile. The lack of notability means this is just an unsalvageable vanity/self-promo article. creffett (talk) 01:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a horribly written article. "background actor" is not the normally used term. Are these bit parts, or was he an extra? Either way he is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:40, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - his four roles have been run of the mill - redshirts or cameos. A BLP about a notable actor would include his family, birth, education, early success in theater, touring or television ads, SGA-AFTA activities, breakout supporting roles, charitable work, a Tony or Oscar nomination, and personal life, none of which is here. Bearian (talk) 19:34, 7 August 2019 (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.