Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Preston Corbell

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:19, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Preston Corbell[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)

Does not meet WP:NACTOR. The refs are all dead links or passing mentions. Searching does not turn up any in-depth coverage. MB 23:19, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:31, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:31, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:43, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:43, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

keep Article has been updated with new resources and fixed broken links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukepiper12 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 24 February 2020 (UTC) — Lukepiper12 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Volcom2015 (talk • contribs). [reply]
Weak Delete: I don't think the sources provided in the article constitute WP:SIGCOV, and a lot of the sources aren't reliable, either. I couldn't find anything else, so I don't think WP:GNG is quite met. However, I wasn't able to access the LA Times article provided, and, in terms of his career as a stuntman, the subject has done quite a bit of work. Dflaw4 (talk) 04:57, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
keep Comment Added reliable resource — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukepiper12 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 28 February 2020 (UTC) — Lukepiper12 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Volcom2015 (talk • contribs). [reply]

Hi, Lukepiper12, thank you for your work on the article. I'm afraid you can only vote once, though, so I've taken the liberty of striking your second "Keep" vote and renaming it as a "Comment". Thanks, Dflaw4 (talk) 03:52, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

“keep” Added notable resource. If this resource is rejected please document why it is used as a reliable source on a variety of wiki articles in which it has been deemed reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Welement (talk • contribs) 17:18, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MILL and WP:GNG, and total lack of reliable sources. In 2007, I might have assumed good faith from a person trying to put up a page like this, but in 2020 the sock-puppetry and alleging a self-punished source is "another reliable source" sounds like one of my lower school kids trying and failing at making up a story. Bearian (talk) 01:48, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NACTOR and there is not enough significant coverage from reliable sources to support a WP:GNG pass. Best, GPL93 (talk) 00:49, 2 March 2020 (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.