Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ricky Guillart

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. Consensus seems clear after relisting. I do not see any reason to protect the title at this time, but please ping me on my talk page if it is deemed necessary. Kinu ^t/_c 19:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky Guillart[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)

No indication of notability per WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR. Only roles so far have been one episode of an animated series, and three uncredited roles, and it's not clear yet how big the roles are for the two upcoming films. I can find no evidence that he won a BET award. Google search for "Ricky Guillart" results in one screen worth of hits, mainly social media and film directories, but no significant discussion of the individual. May be a case of WP:TOOSOON. ... discospinster _talk 02:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, United States of America, and Texas. ... discospinster _talk 02:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, according to the information provided you can see that it is an article by a person who has been recognized very recently, super reliable sources are shown and the arguments are Well reformulated, no errors found, I propose that your nomination be canceled and this article removed until more references are obtained from more relevant media.

Let us remember that not every user can create an article on Wikipedia, and we have also seen the support of several collaborators such as User:Slgrandson, User:AnomieBOT, User:Onel5969, User:Certes, User:GoingBatty, among others. Also that all the information has been provided in recent months, that is, if we give time to get more information to verify this article, we can leave this call open, while you fix the errors you found and try to remove the payroll deletion notice from the item.

Also if someone else would be interested in helping with the collaboration of such an article, it would be much better for everyone, also since I have been able to observe that there are some articles with only 4 references and they are not nominated for deletion, I thank you very much for your supervision, this helps me a lot to improve when it comes to creating articles, but please let's wait until I can fix this error , I thank you a thousand times for your notification, while we correct the error, your alert could be removed from the article.

Thank you Michellelopez1234 (talk) 04:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My collaboration was limited to replacing a link to Model by a more specific one to Model (person). I didn't assess the subject's notability. Certes (talk) 09:56, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Michellelopez1234: Similarly, my one edit before today was to remove overlinking. This edit (or the copyediting I did today) should not be considered when evaluating if Guillart meets Wikipedia's notability criteria.

Yes, there are many articles that are poorly referenced, and these should not be used when evaluating if Guillart meets Wikipedia's notability criteria per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Feel free to improve them or nominate them for deletion if appropriate. GoingBatty (talk) 18:20, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Michellelopez1234: However, the number of references that failed verification could be used in this discussion. GoingBatty (talk) 18:40, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

•More relevant information has been added to this article, with references verified, and errors have been updated for the better. Michellelopez1234 (talk) 02:10, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Additionally, I am concerned regarding Michellelopez1234's use of "we" in their statement which implies it is a possible shared account (not to mention reads like AI). Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:05, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looking over the article, I'd like to suggest draftification if that is okay with the nominator. Otherwise I see this as a Soft Delete and I imagine this article will be restored and back into main space soon enough.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Trivial acting roles, one voice over in a series, perhaps not notable yet. The award nomination is not notable. Still young, could be TOOSOON. Regardless, nothing for sourcing we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 02:40, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable article created by an editor with an inappropriate conflict of interest. Furthermore, this AfD was "closed" by a Cuban IP with the deceptive comment:

The result was Nomination withdrawn

Thanks for the sourcing, Since we have access to offline resources and results, as your notoriety was established, I withdraw this nomination and close this debate. --

The AfD tag on the article was removed with this edit summary:

This notification is canceled because the nomination debate for deletion was closed and its result was to cancel the nomination, it can be verified in the debate article, thank you

These edits upset me because they seem abusive of this website's openness and trust. I feel the use of a logged out IP and deceptive comments about the AfD are blatant indications of bad faith editing and I recommend the closing admin "salt" this article.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:03, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be open to placing light protection on the article title but I think full protection is overkill if it is only due to the actions of an IP account who is obviously unfamiliar with Wikipedia's policies. I also think heavier protection is warranted if an article has been created multiple times which isn't the case here. Of course, we might run into a CSD G4 situation but that can be dealt with. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:03, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This person doesn't yet have the in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources needed to establish notability. Early in their career, so possibly WP:TOOSOON. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neiltonks (talk • contribs) 12:53, 31 October 2023 (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.