Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samuel F. Lee

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel F. Lee[edit]

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

Non-notable autobiography recreated after it was previously CSD'd. The reliable sources don't mention him, and the rest are self-published. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 01:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 01:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an odd case because the article is long and full of references and external links so it appears to be the biography of a notable individual. But scratch the surface and all you have is a young actor trying to make it but who has not made it yet. Many of the references don't support the content of the article. His IMDb profile lists a total of three very minor roles (including one uncredited and one still unreleased) in productions of limited importance. But that profile is used to support the sentence: "he has appeared in numerous feature films, short films, TV series, TV commercials, etc." The article also lists participation in a flash mob as a significant part of his career. Sorry, it's not. And by nature, it is also completely unverifiable. The rest of the article similarly fails to build any convincing sign of notability. The closest attempt is the claim about the Governor's Multicultural Awards but that's not exactly a major award and judging from the website of the Awards, he never was nominated... Pichpich (talk) 02:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see no substantive difference between this version and the one I speedy deleted last month. Per A7 and G4 of Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, I will speedy it again. If Mr. Lee wants to have this article restored, he should take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review. -- Donald Albury 12:17, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have undone the second deletion while this AFD is in progress. CSD is for mostly uncontested deletions - apparently, this one is contested. This discussion will help determine the suitability (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:50, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not my understanding of speedies. I certainly have seen articles speedied after coming to AfD. -- Donald Albury 13:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see the request in WP:REFUND? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That page is not on my watchlist, and I did not receive any notification of such a request. -- Donald Albury 00:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (people). -- Donald Albury 13:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see nothing that supports the claims of notability, and I agree with what Pichpich says. Also, I don't think it was a valid speedy - it makes a claim of importance, which is really all that's needed to avoid A7 (and an AFD delete would give us G4 to use if it's recreated again). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Non notable actor. Why is this not being speedied? If he ever becomes notable that's fine, he can have an article, but this smacks of using Wikipedia to assert notability. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just checked. The article creator has stated this is an article he has created about himself. I've looked at the external links and removed most because they fail WP:EL and the section because the other items are pseudo-references in unreliable sources in inline citations. Frankly there is nothing left in this article even to assert notability (before I edited it!) let alone cite it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see where he would meet the criteria for notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've blocked IP 184.32.60.92 for the duration of this AfD, as they were repeatedly removing Donald Albury's comments. This edit summary makes it look very unlikely that it is Donald Albury logged out (and Donald Albury would surely have responded properly and logged in after the first time) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability issues indeed. The subject's biggest claim to fame is being a YouTube personality, something that anyone can easily be if they aren't already. -- WikHead (talk) 01:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sourcable notability. Seaching undeer his birth name[1] finds a few forums and social networking sites such as his Taiwanese Facebook page... giving us that same name as author/major contributor to the article. Good luck to Sam in his endeavors, but this one is way TOO SOON. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball time yet, chaps and chapesses? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:24, 29 March 2012 (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.