Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric West (5th nomination)

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. And salted. Sandstein 12:34, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eric West[edit]

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

This joke again? How is West meant to be notable? Despite claims he didn't feature in 30 Rock, he didn't star in World War Z. He didn't release an album. He wasn't dating Christina Milian. He turns up at fashion shows. Being called one to watch (how long do we have to watch defore he does anything), a rising star (for how long), a style icon. Nothing notable. This is not a speedy delete as a repost as it uses some new references but they are once again not good references. Zimbio, not a reliable source, no depth of coverage. Vibe Vixen, not a reliable source, no depth of coverage. Q by Equinox, no depth of coverage. Twitter, enough said.
What's new since the last deletion? He didn't star in a movie and he got a few passing mentions in some non reliable sources. Nothing that makes him notable. Delete this yet again. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:03, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you joking? I think you need to pick up an issue of Cosmopolitan magazine! How is this person not notable? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18kEKh7GiPU] Matthew Fox who was also a lead wasn't even in WWZ. I could spend more time to edit this wiki, but to delete it is a joke. Alejandrad117 (talk) 16:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and permanently salt Enough. No matter how much they do to pad their IMDb with 'member of the studio audience="appearance"' ridiculousness or use never-clicked MTV web series (in this case Hey Girl) to try to get notability, it isn't happening. He's an extra. Like in the last nomination just saying you might be on Smash doesn't mean you will be on Smash. And seriously, a YouTube link to him walking by a paparazzi camera? Why do I get the feeling a bit of renumeration was involved there to puff up sources, along with the Equinox piece which definitely seems like a non-editorial paid job? Stop gaming the system. Also just save it Alejanrad117, I know what's next; "Not famous Eric West? (random links of random pictures and random YouTube video of West in background of some event)" After about four AfD's of the same refutation pattern under numerous socks it's tiresome to see that response; let's actually try to make a point about why you feel the article should be kept. Nate • (chatter) 17:26, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The YouTube video is actually from GettyImages [1]

It's ironic that someone who is photographed by paparazzi walking down the street would be a non-notable. [2]

I could reference his Instagram alone. [3].

GQ. Talks about him. http://www.gq.com/style/blogs/the-gq-eye/2013/11/the-most-shocking-celebrity-costumes-from-last-night.html and somehow your opinion on him makes him non-notable lol..... Confusing! Alejandrad117 (talk) 18:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And my point is made. Don't bother with the subject's Instagram, it's not only ineligible as a primary source but doesn't expand any knowledge about the subject. The GQ link is just 'he dressed like a nerd'. It certainly doesn't take Maureen Dowd to make that observation at all. Again, please make an actual argument to why this article should be kept. Nate • (chatter) 18:18, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The point you fail to get is somehow someone that is talked about aby the world's most important men's magazine and followed by the paparazzi even on a subway train. You find non-notable. Sorry. That's a joke. [4] [5] sounds like you have a personal reason. Eric is far more notable that a lot of people with wiki pages. Alejandrad117 (talk) 18:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So non-notable that his song is #3 on rhapsody.. Again. A deletion is a joke.. [6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alejandrad117 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The most ironic and idiotic thing about a deletion is that Eric West will be notable with or without a Wikipedia page. When the people above are saying it should be deleted, I find that odd. If someone is reading about Eric in GQ [7], InStyle [8], Bleu magazine [9], Vibe magazine (where he was named NEXT star of 2013) [10] or even with he makes the worst dressed list by Now magazine [11]

You're somehow telling me the MILLIONS of people that are reading about him in GQ, Vanity Fair, Cosmopolitan magazine, US Weekly, Vibe magazine, In Style, Now Magazine just to name a few.. means he is NON-notable. What a big joke! Alejandrad117 (talk) 21:31, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Bleu looks like one of those 'paid to wear our clothes for a story' titles that I never seem to find on a newsstand, and you cited a random piece in InStyle Germany which when translated doesn't even mention the subject pictured within the article's text, just some flowery text about buying whatever clothes he wore cheap. All of your sources are ineligible as either paid mentions or coming right off the subject's Facebook. One more time; Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn, Qik and whatever other social media accounts are in the control of the subject themselves are ineligible as primary sources that are not allowed to be used. Corbis is ineligible; it's video posted to a site you have to pay money to see, and I get the feeling that Jeannie Ortega, who has a sourceable career, was the actual target of the video. Same with FilmMagic, another paid photo service. And anyone these days can put their songs up on Rhapsody or Spotify and create a playlist showing an artist's song on top of the charts. Guess what? We don't source charts to Rhapsody, only true industry media such as Billboard. Stop persisting. I'm not arguing further with this, source with good editorial content, not whatever scraps you pull up from Google Image Search. Nate • (chatter) 01:40, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All you've said it "WHAT YOU BELIEVE" to get around the facts.... What you believe, does not change the fact of a cover story does it? What it looks like is a 'paid to wear our clothes' again does not change the fact it is a cover story. There is no rule that says what it or isn't notable because it's what you believe about a "cover story". Jeannie Oretga hasn't had a hit in YEARS. She doesn't even have 2,000 followers. [12]. And if anyone could create a playlist, wouldn't EVERYONE be on the rhapsody charts? It took one Twitter search.. [13]

Your argument is ridiculous. You're telling me, that someone in NUMEROUS national magazines around the globe isn't notable.... A JOKE! Alejandrad117 (talk) 01:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You claim... Non-notable, but Wendy Williams mentioned him in Hot Topics... [14] and Bravo [15] and yahoo [16] and newspapers [17] I can go on.... for someone NON-Notable.. he seems to get a lot of attention. I can find 50 models with wiki pages who are not as notable as Eric. Alejandrad117 (talk) 02:03, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the last time the subject's Instagram is non-sourcable. Those YouTube videos prove nothing (and the Wendy clip was already ruled an ineligible source in the fourth nom). Stop posting red carpet events, they are non-sourcable. I'm done engaging any longer with you and my rationale stands as-is. Nate • (chatter) 02:10, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't care what your opinion is. I don't have to change it. YouTube being a source or not... it doesn't change the fact that you're spending so much of your time trying to claim Eric West as NON-notable. It actually laughable when you look at ALL of the coverage surrounding one man who can't even walk down the street without being photographed by paparazzi ... I can't help but laugh... GQ, Vanity Fair, US Weekly, Wendy Williams, MTV, Cosmopolitan. You must have nothing better to. Alejandrad117 (talk) 02:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - And salt. Procedural. This subject has been deleted three times already. Enough is enough. Carrite (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - And salt. I concur with the nominator and Carrite. Finnegas (talk) 22:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I clicked on a couple of the text links touted above and saw nothing above the extremely humdrum. I watched a youtube in which somebody takes a lot of photos (which doesn't even consume 35mm film; electrons are cheap) of some bloke while not many other people look interested. This person seems to be mentioned in various places. So are hundreds of thousands of people. Delete. AfDs on him have already wasted enough time, so salt. (If he becomes article-worthy, then a new article on him can still be created, via the regular procedure.) -- Hoary (talk) 10:23, 26 January 2014 (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.