Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Blampied

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. MBisanz ^talk 00:26, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Blampied[edit]

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

Looks to fail WP:BIO, but perhaps more importantly we have a BLP which cites only Twitter and an official site. Also "internet sensation"? Possibly CSDable (A7/G11), but as that's happened a couple times before let's give it a chance at AfD and salt it if there's consensus to delete. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:59, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:03, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:03, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am familiar with him and WhatCulture (and a fan of their videos at that), however being a "internet sensation" there aren't enough outside reliable sources to verify his notability. Just performing a search under the "News" link above, there are a number of hits, but most from the WhatCulture site. If the WCPW and WhatCulture site continue to grow, I'd definitely see his page returning, as of now it's just a bit too soon. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article has been deleted a number of times (and re-created) with no attempt to provide any RS to show notability.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per above, no real attempt to establish notability. Mattlore (talk) 22:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I find it puzzling that the creator of this article decided to go with twitter/youtube/wrestling to try and establish GNG, when it appears this guy has other sources about him, being a member of The Beta Males - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, or his debut screenplay for Eugene - 6, 7, 8, 9, and a couple of press releases from HighBeam - 10, 11. Granted, I don't think this is enough to satisfy GNG, but still a curious choice to go with twitter and youtube.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 00:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above. JTP ^(talk) 02:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sourcing alone (just YouTube?) is grounds for me to suggest this does not have the sufficient reliable 3rd party coverage required for meeting GNG. But I would urge against salting because he may become notable in future if WCPW picks up. (CRYSTAL I know but BLUE) Plus they'd probably make it part of a storyline "Adam Blampied Banned From Wikipedia" which likely would lead to unwanted media and IP attention. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:40, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG.LM2000 (talk) 16:42, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it wasn't for Isaidnoway's comment I'd be saying Speedy Delete. I am getting fed up with the WhatCulture Pro Wrestling spam machine. One of their events is called "Refuse to Lose" (I have its article tagged for speedy deletion) and unfortunately that seems to sum up their attitude to Wikipeda too. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:15, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A lot of different editors have been submitting nonsense about WCPW recently. If they really are a random bunch of pro-wrestling fans all labouring under the same genuine mistaken belief that their favourite stuff on YouTube should have Wikipedia articles then that is just one of those things that we have to deal with but if there is any sign of collusion or sockpuppetry then it will be time to take a much harder line. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:27, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What Culture Pro Wrestling (Closed, article deleted) may also be of interest. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:52, 4 September 2016 (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.