Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Chuks

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. – Joe (talk) 11:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Chuks

[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)

Does not pass WP:ENT. The sources are all recycled press releases, a video clip, an interview and a couple of ‘top ten’ items. No indication at all of sustained coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. Mccapra (talk) 19:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Basically what Mccapra said. Subject of article is a comedian & actor but doesn’t satisfy WP:ENT. Celestina007 (talk) 19:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I can't see that WP:ENT is met, nor WP:GNG. --bonadea contributions talk 11:53, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actor. I am loosing hope we will avoid getting to 1 million articles on living people this year, unless the death rate from Covid-19 goes up a lot, but I am not going to let us keep articles on clearly non-notable actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that comment is in very poor taste, Johnpacklambert. Dflaw4 (talk) 12:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- What is in poor taste is hundreds of articles on living people languishing for over a decade without even 1 reliable source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:03, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's bizarre, Johnpacklambert. Your thirst for deleting articles has really gotten the better of you. Dflaw4 (talk) 13:37, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What I want is an end to unreliably sourced material that has no place in an encyclopedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:40, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Johnpacklambert, well, good luck with that. In the meantime, I suggest you don't make flippant remarks like the one above. Dflaw4 (talk) 13:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep or Draftify: I don't have any opinion on WP:ENT, but the subject is getting ongoing coverage, despite the quality of that coverage being disputed. There is obviously a consensus emerging to delete the article, but I think "draftifying" could be worthwhile in this case, as it will give interested editors the opportunity to update the page with new, recent sources. Dflaw4 (talk) 12:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When I send articles to draft it's because there very likely are sources to demonstrate notability, but the article's creator has not put them in. In this case a number of editors have looked and none of us have come up with sustained coverage in reliable independent sources. So far nobody has put forward additional sources that would help show that the subject is notable. If there are such sources, adding them now would be a good move. If there are not, no purpose can be served by moving to draft. Mccapra (talk) 12:55, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject lacks in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources. I ran a Google search and did not find coverage that are independent of him. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 12:52, 28 May 2020 (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.