Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hayden Black

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. Courcelles (talk) 20:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hayden Black[edit]

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

AfD-ing on behalf of unregistered user. Please see Talk:Hayden Black: "I am very concerned about the lack of verification in this article. It lacks citations for the majority of its statements, instead linking to vague home pages for project Black allegedly worked on. The usable sources at the bottom seem suspiciously similar; the phrase "Video responses, in which Abigail’s fans pretend to have their own versions of Bloomberger’s, are posted her website." appears as "Video responses, in which viewers pretend to have their own versions of Bloomberger's Syndrome, are posted on the site's main feed." in a different source. This suggest an underlying press release to me. In addition, a major contributor to the article shares a username with Black's Myspace profile, suggesting severe COI but explaining the WP:PUFF. Direct quotes are lacking citations, and it might be best to just nuke and start over. If more evidence is necessary, please let me know." by 67.86.185.252 samtar ^(msg) 11:11, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Almost all the statements in this are either unsourced, do not add up to notability, or are written like promotional material. The person may be notable enough for an article, but there isn't enough text in this that is actually sourced to justify retaining it. There may be enough salvageable text for a stub-class article of minor importance, but as is, unless someone wants to fix it, what we are looking at here is a resume style article probably written by the subject himself. Muldrake (talk) 03:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by all means as the current article is unacceptable and IMDb shows no signs of improvement and my searches also found nothing good aside from one podcast. It's worth mentioning this has stayed the same since starting in August 2010. SwisterTwister talk 06:42, 5 October 2015 (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.