Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Byron Gibson

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:05, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Byron Gibson[edit]

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

I was actually PRODing again until I noticed McGeddon's PROD and it was also previously tagged by JJMC89. My own newest PROD was going to be: "Bombarded with overspecifications about his work and job information such as who, what and where he worked and there's of course no inherited notability from anyone or anything (this article goes as far to list either his own websites or other trivial links as sources); IMDb itself lists his characters as simply being trivial and minor; none of this establishes any independent notability and substance at all.". The entire article has hints of serving only for PR. SwisterTwister talk 04:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:11, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO with a touch of WP:TNT. Badly written in incomplete sentences. A vanity page with no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as appears to fail NACTOR. Roles do not appear to establish notability. However, "badly written" is not a deletion criterion, so if someone can provide additional sources, I am willing to reconsider my position. Montanabw^(talk) 20:49, 24 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.