Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kjeld Gogosha-Clark

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. Geschichte (talk) 20:50, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kjeld Gogosha-Clark[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)

I'm tempted to speedy this as a blatant hoax—I find it vanishingly unlikely that even the most obscure "filmmaker, actor and writer" would have no Google hits other than Wikipedia mirrors—but given that the page is 15 years old, there's a conceivable chance that this person is both genuine and notable. Needless to say, it only has one incoming link other than a dab page; that page (Gaylord Dingler) was created at the same time as this one and to me looks equally questionable, but LA comedy isn't something on which I'm qualified to comment. Needless to say, the sole "reference" is a dead link (as are the four alleged references on Gaylord Dingler, come to that). ‑ Iridescent 19:47, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ‑ Iridescent 19:47, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:02, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:02, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:03, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:03, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think this is a hoax (although I certainly understand how you came to that conclusion): the Shakespeare performances, optical boutique, and cycling-related coffee shop all seem to check out, remarkably enough. This is of little moment, however, since he falls far short of notability: without some sort of significant coverage, I'm left to assume that he's simply a wannabe trying to make a name for himself in Hollywood. In other words, never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by self-promotion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:22, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as blatant promotion. What isn't obviously promotional in this may or may not be fiction. Even if all of the not-obviously-promotional were all verifiable, this would amount to no notability and the article viewed as a whole would be promotional. Yes, for all I know it may be a fictional parody of a promotion -- but really, life's too short to waste it on determining exactly which factors have been combined to create junk such as this. (And ditto for "Gaylord Dingler".) -- Hoary (talk) 22:23, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not a hoax and it's debatable whether it fails WP:PROMO, but I am not really finding any evidence of WP:SIGCOV and no indication of WP:BIO being met. All coverage is from vanilla websites that show no indication of meeting WP:RS. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:18, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable individual. -KH-1 (talk) 05:23, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:32, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NACTOR and GNG.4meter4 (talk) 16:43, 8 October 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.