Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Haslam

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. ✗plicit 23:59, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff_Haslam[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)

Dear Wikipedians, I am the subject of this article. I respectfully ask that it be deleted. I regard myself as a non-notable, private person. The article has many problems regarding sources and other issues as noted. I would like to see it deleted rather than fixed, for the sake of my privacy. Thank you for your consideration. Yermxzchz (talk) 16:06, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Tagged for notability since 2017, and the page has BLP problems (namely the "Controversy" section that is sourced mostly to blogs). My search for sources mainly brings up local Edmonton coverage, much of it lacking depth, and I do not think we have SIGCOV here.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 16:31, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:59, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:59, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. KidAd • SPEAK 23:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to respect the subject privacy. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 21:09, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per request. Article is not well-sourced, and nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to be sourced considerably better than this — the minor, insignificant incident that's carrying literally all of the sourcing here is just a WP:BLP1E matter that fails the ten year test. Subject is not nationally or internationally prominent enough to override all of those problems, either. Bearcat (talk) 14:29, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No indepth sources available. fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 03:28, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable source found, lacks notability.Aloolkaparatha (talk) 03:08, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even if we did not have the specific request to delete the article seems to totally fail not news requirments with a very short amount of blog generated coverage about someone who would not have come close to passing notability guidelines for an actor anyway.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:54, 23 June 2021 (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.