Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caillou Pettis (actor)

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 00:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Caillou Pettis (actor)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Recreation of protected page Caillou Pettis. Mostly unreliable sources. Contested PROD. Adam9007 (talk) 01:32, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:38, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:38, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete, no RS, article is an advert. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:40, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable actor. Plus as a minor we should insist on very clear coverage in reliable sources, because we need to respect minor's privacy more than that of adults.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as BLP hazard, warn creator this is an almost-entirely uncited BLP of a minor - David Gerard (talk) 14:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I noted this article on WP:BLPN - David Gerard (talk) 15:46, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:59, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Actor has been the centre of multiple news headlines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FilmLover2016 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see "multiple" news headlines cited in this article, though. At most, I see one, and that article doesn't mention his acting career which is his supposed claim to notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:55, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing here is a substantive claim to passing WP:CREATIVE, and the sourcing doesn't even approach getting him over WP:GNG in lieu — there's one source here that represents media coverage about him, rather than a self-published primary source, but (a) it says nothing about him that would constitute a reason why a person gets an encyclopedia article, covering him only in the context of a single social media post he once made about Taylor Swift, and (b) one piece of media coverage is not enough to make a person "notable for nothing in particular just because media coverage exists". We are not a free public relations platform for YouTubers, and as correctly noted above we have to be extremely careful for WP:BLPPRIVACY reasons when the article subject is a minor. Bearcat (talk) 21:43, 5 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.