Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erik A. Williams (2nd nomination)

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. Sandstein 06:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Erik A. Williams

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Self-promotional and non-notable. Article has been deleted at least five times in the past and always reappears later. Nearly the entire article is cited from facebook, myspace and imdb.com, none of which are reliable sources. Other AfDs for this article in the past under different article names include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erik A Williams.Trusilver 07:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unfortunately per nominator's reasons. I notice the creator's edits are only on this subject and no one else. --Artene50 (talk) 08:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This has been an ongoing issue with the particular article for years now. The subject of the article is also the chief driving force behind getting it on Wikipedia. He edits under the username Erkman27, and has a substantial history of creating self-promotional articles. Since the last time the article was deleted I had placed a copy of it in my sandbox just for future reference, this user had been working on it there for several months, and I find it interesting to note that the article appears to have been transcluded directly from my sandbox to mainspace by User:Robnthorsen after User:Erkman27 was done working on it. This speaks very loudly of sockpuppetry to me, though I feel this is secondary as any WP:COI issues are the least of this article's problems.Trusilver 09:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. I'm not seeing anything remotely satisfying WP:NACTOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Should also note to the closing admin that if the article is salted, make sure to salt both Erik A. Williams and Erik A Williams as they have both been created and recreated by/for this subject. Trusilver 19:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt non notable actor with no major film roles, extras don't count. Seasider91 (talk) 18:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete While style and tone are otherwise addressable issues and do not themselves require deletion, we have a person whose acting work consists primarily of minor, unnamed, or uncredited roles.[1] And while he has credits as a director and producer, these are again for many less-than-Wikipedia-notable titles. While one can admire his taking a part in so many projects, the crux here lies on verifiability and coverage. Dispite his body of work, no one is taking notice. IF this ever changes the author, User:Robnthorsen, can state his case for a return and present his sources at WP:REFUND. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The actor in question not only had a major supporting role in a nationally-broadcast Fox TV drama but is in an upcoming episode of Stan Lee's new web series "Fan Wars." He is also showcased in the trailer for the show. I supplied a reference link here for both the Fox movie and Fan Wars episode but the system continued to block it for some "span filter" thing. This is why I hate trying to update anything on this site. I do my best and research the hell out of all the topics I supply and then I am called out and my information is removed because no one wants to help me learn how to use the system correctly. Instead I get judgment, ridicule, and deleted info for no reason. It is extraordinarily difficult for me to mind read what a "notable" reference is when that is entirely a relative notion. I also have extreme difficulty understanding why this person continues to be called out when there are hundreds (if not thousands) of pages for people on here who I personally would not consider qualifying (all of those of which I mention do not have enough qualifying information according to Wiki standards but you can bet I'm no nark) Robnthorsen, ^Robnthorsen 10:44, 20 July 2012 (PST)

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.