Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Max Madsen

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 23:36, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Max Madsen

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Max Madsen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Doesn't meet WP:NACTOR standards. His notability comes from being in a famous family, not his acting. Also, an ongoing problem of article subject editing his own article (which he created) so COI involved here. Originally PROD'd but an IP editor removed the PROD tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:06, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
• Delete. I reviewed every Google News hit for this name (about 60), and briefly checked the top search results on Google Books, Google Scholar, and general Google search. I found zero sources to support notability. Regarding the three sources listed in the article, two are not Reliable and the third lacks significant independent coverage about the subject.
  • jeanbooknerd.com is a blog. Not a Reliable Source.
  • wingmanmagazine.com: Their about-us page contains zero useful information, and certainly nothing to indicate professional and responsible editorial oversight. Their submissions page has an open call for unpaid submissions. They clearly are not vetting writers, and it's clearly not credible to presume fact check these unpaid unvetted writers. They also explicitly invite promotional pieces, and this point should not be understated, considering the almost comical level of Puffery in the cited piece. The first THREE sentences manage to pack in: "illustrious" "incomparable acting heavyweight" "inimitable" "rising star" "incredible" "charming" "looks and acting chops" "keen insight" "astute knowledge".
  • wmagazine.com This appears to be the best of the lot. It is an interview, which is often recognized as a difficult case for Notability purposes. The first paragraph barely has three sentences about him. The rest lacks independence, with the subject saying whatever he wants about himself. While it contains extensive comments by the subject, it it lacks significant independent coverage about the subject. Alsee (talk) 13:08, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Delete, I concur with Alsee's extensive search, from my own attempt to find coverage the only coverage I could find was either from a primary or unreliable source. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

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.