Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyler Deschanel

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. BJ^Talk 20:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Deschanel[edit]

Despite phrases like "Deschanel can quickly restore order to your face" another editor thinks this is not spam! — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G10 Speedy Delete Rather than spam, this reads as an attack page against Tyler. It has been tagged as such, and any successful deletion should include a courtesy blanking of this AfD. Nate • (chatter) 07:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - We need a version of WP:BEFORE for admins (or whoever) that remove (decline might be simply passing) CSDs without a cursory examination. The last section screams hoax/vanity/vandalism/attack. It's one thing to pass, it's another to remove the CSD. It's another to remove the CSD and not bring it to AfD themselves. Shadowjams (talk) 07:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G11, can't see how that this qualifies as G10, just odd G11. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 07:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please look more carefully guys I've reverted the IP vandalism and removed the G10 tag that this lead to. I've also deleted the spammy legacy paragraph, and asked the author to read wp:COI. As to whether the chap is notable, well I'll leave that for those who care about Hollywood stuff to judge. But he appears to have articles about him on three of our sister projects. Please read the history of articles like this, when something has been vandalised you neeed to revert the vandalism before considering whether it should be deleted, and he's already had a G11 declined. Ϣere SpielChequers 08:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Look more carefully at the history - The original creator was the only editor (with one small totally legitimate AWB exception) when RHaworth tagged it for CSD, and it was subsequently (in my opinion erroneously) denied, and to which all of the above were replying. While the anon IP added some vandalism, I was referring to the pre-anon content. On top of that, a totally new anon, and a totally new editor, who both contribute to only one (or two) articles, suggests a pattern. Don't chastise the four or more editors who think this is speedy material, before looking deeper at the history. Shadowjams (talk) 08:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The current version of the article is not suitable for speedy deletion. The requested speedy deletion was correctly declined as in the version that was tagged only the final section had any problems and the majority of the article was of encyclopaedic tone. I have no opinion about whether Tyler Deschanel is notable enough for an article or not. Thryduulf (talk) 12:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I disagree that the speedy was correctly removed and no further action taken, but I can understand that as a reasonable position notwithstanding the last section. But three things. 1) The last section was part of the original post, suggesting that the rest of the article might be an attack page or hoax too. We use context clues to sniff out hoaxes, and this is a pretty big clue. 2) The second section of the article's problematic (even now) too, so it is incorrect to say that "only the final section [has] any problems." For instance: "would eventually lead to his mastery of in the field of make-up." 3) The tone here isn't encyclopedic, nor are there any sources, or indication of notability. It probably should have been tagged A7 but as a hoax would be reasonable. It's fine that it's here now, but I just want to be clear on what the state of the article is.Shadowjams (talk) 21:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 12:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 12:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 12:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, NN person, no one doubts that he exists but there are no sources that show he satisfies WP:N. meshach (talk) 15:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- While I don't see how this an attack page, and I don't see any justification for blanking the {{afd}} there are no WP:RS -- nor do there seem likely to be any, any time soon. Geo Swan (talk) 23:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notablity is not asserted, let alone shown. Edward321 (talk) 00:17, 15 July 2009 (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.