Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frankie Hopkins (2nd 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frankie Hopkins[edit]

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

A somewhat promotional article on a non-notable filmmaker/writer/comedian, which appears to be the work of a SPA. I can't turn up any reliable sources that would establish the notability of the subject. A google search fails to turn up any reliable sources. Even if every claim here is true, this doesn't really come close to being notable. This article was prodded by Gigs, seconded by me, then de-prodded by the author. This was previously speedied during it's first AfD as a hoax, as a non-admin, I can't comment on whether it's been improved since then. (However, I would suggest that if this is deleted, some salt be applied). Bfigura ^(talk) 22:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For completeness, I'm also nominating the other non-notable works by this subject. Nothing here has any reliable sourcing, much less enough to pass the relevant notability guideline -- Bfigura ^(talk) 22:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the lot of them - the articles all rely on a non-notable show (as I said when I prodded the list of characters article yesterday). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 00:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After poking around, signs are pointing to elaborate hoax. was not able to corroborate the claim about the WGN airing anywhere on WGN's site. I couldn't find mention of this on rottontomatoes either. If it's not a hoax, then it's not verifiable and not notable anyway. Gigs (talk) 01:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax, no evidence that any sells his supposed albums. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At worst it's all a hoax. At best it's unverifiable. Sarilox (talk) 20:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Emperor (talk) 15:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the lot and salt - as the site says they are self-publishing the comic and no-one seems able to turn up any kind of coverage (not even the awards which is a little suspicious), so fails WP:N and WP:V, which are pretty fundamental. As this has been deleted once and recreated with no additional effort to satisfy even the most basic of requirements I'd suggest salting the articles - if anyone thinks they can prove notability then they can start something in their sandbox for people to look over and see if it meets the required standards. (Emperor (talk) 20:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Delete - Sarilox put it nicely. Airplaneman ^talk 21:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sarilox DRosin (talk) 00:03, 21 December 2009 (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.