Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perry Mark Stratychuk

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. Tone 18:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perry Mark Stratychuk[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)

Résumé-like WP:BLP of a filmmaker and musician, not making any notability claim "inherent" enough to withstand the considerable problems with the article as written. Firstly, this was created by a virtual WP:SPA whose edit history has been focused almost exclusively on this article with only very occasional contributions on any other topic, so there's a high risk of conflict of interest editing here. Secondly, it consists very disproportionately of bulletpointed résumé sections, exhaustively listing everything he did all the way down to early "technical coordinator" credits and unsourced books and albums. Thirdly, while there's a very long contextless pile of references listed in the references section, very few of them are actually being used to footnote content, and many of them come from sources (e.g. limited circulation trade publications or organizational newsletters) that are not easily located in order to repair that problem by determining what statements they actually support -- and even the ones I was able to retrieve (Winnipeg Free Press, Cinema Canada, Playback) were virtually all glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage that wasn't about him to any non-trivial degree. In other words, it's not necessarily WP:GNG-building coverage, but just an exhaustive stack of every time Stratychuk or his company have been mentioned in a published source, which is not how you demonstrate or bolster notability. Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can write and source it properly, but nothing in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to be written and sourced considerably better than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:22, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:22, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:22, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:09, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with nominator. Removed extensive sections of unsourced material but not all of it. There's not much left after the purge. Maybe there is notability buried in the former list of uncited references but I think it's unlikely. If a WP:GNG worthy article can be written it will probably need a complete refresh. Curiocurio (talk) 01:02, 30 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.