Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luke Kelly-Clyne (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:19, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Kelly-Clyne[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)

Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. Links are brief mentions, interviews, or lack mention of individual. Appears to fails WP:N. Article created by paid editor. reddogsix (talk) 05:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for the same reasons as were given by everybody except the creator of the article in the previous discussion. There was no evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines when that discussion took place, and there is none now. References are not independent sources, or do not give substantial coverage, or both. Four of the references are merely announcements of an appointment in trade publications and similar, and they contain substantial amounts of text which sentence by sentence gives slightly paraphrased copies of the same statements: clearly merely four write-ups of the same press release. There are web sites which exist largely (or in some cases even entirely) by publishing paid for write-ups of press releases in this way, and presenting it as though it were independent journalism. Other references are no better, including, for example, a mere list of Kelly-Clyne's works, and one of them doesn't even mention him at all. This article is a good example of one of the problems caused by paid editors who come here to use Wikipedia to promote their clients. In such cases there is a severe conflict of interest, as the editor has a vested interest in trying to get the article accepted, which conflicts with the interest of trying to make sure that content follows Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If this discussion ends in delete, as the first one did, I hope the editor will now accept consensus, rather than creating an article to publicise his or her non-notable client for a third time. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:48, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:CREATIVE, fails WP:SIGCOV. Agree with conclusion of the AfD held 6 months ago.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:04, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and at least some of the bluelinks are fraudulent. For example, it says he works for a media company called Big Breakfast, but the link is to a 90s television series in Australia.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:16, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clearly fails the WP:NACADEMIC and WP:CREATIVE. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 21:46, 24 June 2018 (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.