Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dylan Duff

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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:20, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Duff[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Doesn't seem to pass the notability criteria. Has been rejected many times at AfC, the creator was even warned not to submit again without changes. Reads like an advertisement too. PROD was removed so bringing it here. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 04:45, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 04:56, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Well, I don't like this page (a 15-year-old kid who is a "philanthropist" . . . right), and it appears very likely to be self-promotion (created by an apparent single-use account), but that's not why I'm backing deletion - there's a total lack of anything demonstrating "significant coverage" as required under WP:GNG. IMDB does not substantiate significant coverage. Teen101 itself does not appear to be notable. FOARP (talk) 15:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks significant coverage and like FOARP mentioned very self-promotional. User:vanmodhe (talk) 15:14, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User blocked for sockpuppetry. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:32, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This page is amazing. I do not believe this is self promotional and it does not read like an advertisement. This article is very informative and factual, Dylan Duff IS a philanthropist! The definition of philanthropy states that a philanthropist is a person who donates their time and/or money to charitable organizations, which Dylan Duff does. Dylan Duff volunteers for many charities and donates 10% of his Acting proceeds to charities such as Me to We, Sickkids, and Lumos. 15:30, 15 November 2018.

Alright but how does the page being amazing address the issues raised above which is a lack of significant coverage, a requirement for Wikipedia articles? It doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG. We cannot seem to find reliable sources showing significant coverage.HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 20:34, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The notability test for philanthropists is not the presence of the word philanthropist in the article, it is the degree to which the person did or did not receive media coverage about their philanthropic work. Bearcat (talk) 01:15, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as Wikipedia:TOOSOON. His body of work just isn't strong enough yet, although he has won a minor award. I removed the "Family history" stuff because it's completely unsubstantiated, and possibly nonsense. PK T(alk) 15:18, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:ANYBIO; significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:17, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Obviously fails the WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 19:00, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This page is not "amazing" — it is poorly sourced, and states nothing about him that's "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be sourced much better than this. The Young Artist Awards and the Joey Awards are not notability-clinching distinctions for the purposes of getting an actor over WP:NACTOR #3 because awards — that attaches to awards (like the Emmys or the Oscars or the Canadian Screen Awards) that get media coverage, not to just any award that exists. No prejudice against recreation in the future if and when he has a stronger notability claim and better sourcing for it than this. Bearcat (talk) 01:15, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per policy. scope_creep (talk) 12:33, 22 November 2018 (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.