Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derrick Beckles
- 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 no consensus. Star Mississippi 02:58, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Derrick Beckles[edit]
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Derrick Beckles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP (possibly WP:AUTOBIO, as it was created by an WP:SPA with virtually no history of contributing to Wikipedia on any other topic) of a person not well-sourced as passing WP:CREATIVE. The notability claim here, that he created and hosted a TV show, is not "inherently" notable enough to automatically entitle him to a standalone BLP as a separate topic from the show -- it's one where he would have to clear WP:GNG as the subject of significant coverage in his own right, but it's not clear that the sourcing here is actually doing what's required. Half of the footnotes here are primary sources (IMDb, the show's own self-published content about itself) that aren't support for notability at all, and almost everything else is a glancing namecheck of his existence in an article whose primary subject is something else. I can only see one source here (The New York Times) that's substantively enough about Derrick Beckles to count for something, but one GNG-worthy source isn't enough all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 12:40, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 12:40, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 12:40, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete the sourcing is not enough to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- As mentioned on other occasions User:Johnpacklambert, the sourcing in the article is relatively irrelevant, as WP:AFD requires that one WP:BEFORE and consider WP:ATD - such as adding sources. As a vote, particularly the first voter, in an AFD, you have some responsibility to do that as well. Can you describe the process you used during the 1-minute you took to vote delete at 15:52 after your (dubious) delete at 15:51 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Carson Berry? Nfitz (talk) 18:47, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:39, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment what about sources like this. There's also this review, that discusses him extensively from the Philadelphia Daily News (which is in the references, with a broken link). There's other shorter bits, like in the New York Times in 2005. Thoughts User:Bearcat? Nfitz (talk) 18:47, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- Q&A interviews, in which the subject is talking about himself in the first person, are acceptable for sourcing stray facts after GNG has already been passed by stronger sources, but do not count for anything toward the initial question of whether GNG has been passed in the first place, so that's a no on Den of Geek. The New York Times is already in the article and was already identified as such in my nomination statement, so it isn't a new data point that wasn't already taken into account, and the Philadelphia Inquirer link is paywalled as "subscriber only" content, such that I can't read it in order to evaluate how much it does or doesn't say about him — and even if I just take your word for it (despite my fairly strong doubts that you're actually a paid subscriber to the Philadelphia Inquirer either) that it says enough to count for something, even just passing WP:GNG still requires more than just two acceptable sources. Bearcat (talk) 21:11, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oops User:Bearcat - I double-checked and I thought it was a different New York Time reference; odd. Also odd, I checked that Philadelphia Daily News link just now (which is the newspaper the article appeared in - both seem to share the same website) and I'm not hitting a paywall - even in incognito mode. Perhaps it's regional - but I thought you were in Canada as well. I'd found it originally in Proquest (ProQuest 856671902) - but I was trying to make it easier by linking the online version I found later. Nfitz (talk) 06:44, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- Q&A interviews, in which the subject is talking about himself in the first person, are acceptable for sourcing stray facts after GNG has already been passed by stronger sources, but do not count for anything toward the initial question of whether GNG has been passed in the first place, so that's a no on Den of Geek. The New York Times is already in the article and was already identified as such in my nomination statement, so it isn't a new data point that wasn't already taken into account, and the Philadelphia Inquirer link is paywalled as "subscriber only" content, such that I can't read it in order to evaluate how much it does or doesn't say about him — and even if I just take your word for it (despite my fairly strong doubts that you're actually a paid subscriber to the Philadelphia Inquirer either) that it says enough to count for something, even just passing WP:GNG still requires more than just two acceptable sources. Bearcat (talk) 21:11, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 08:36, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- 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.