In one sentence: the article was delete because of questioning WP:V, only on basis of IMDB, one of the most unreliable sources.
Keep/Delete/draftify/comments
An AfD is reasoning; not about count keep/delete count.
Two people voted Delete.
1st Delete vote) The first with the reasoning “Per nom.” And the nominator said: “I cannot locate this man on IMDB as a stuntman at all, so to me he fails GNG”. This is not a valid reason for deletion as IMBD is an unreliable source. See below for more.
2nd Delete vote) “not enough sourcing to show notability”. The persons doesn’t explain why,and that’s a pitty because the article includes for example BBC sources and other notable news media. See my reply in the AfD discussion.
Another people voted keep, another leaning toward keep, another for rewrite, and one who commented stated that he is notable with a clear reasoning.
Already on the basis I stated above; I don’t understand why the article is deleted.
Reasoning for the deletion
The reason for the deletion is that he cant be located clearly at IMDB. So it’s about around 100 reliable newspapers articles worldwide against IMBD. In de deletion discussing I clearly indicates IMDB is an unreliable source.
At Wikipedia we can not use IMBD as a source within an article, see WP:Imdb. Because IMBD is a user-generated website and the site is considered unreliable. There have been a number of notable hoaxes in the past. It can only be used as an external link. And under wp:IMDBREF is stated that IMDB is unacceptable and it’s as unreliable as Facebook and Twitter.
I don’t have to say it here, but so it can be explained why the stuntman is not enough credited at IMDB because 1) IMDB is incomplete. 2) Maybe an IMDB user delete the content of this person (by purpose or by vandalism?). 3) The stuntman might have been an the manager of the stunt who organized everything; so that’s the reason he is not credited at IMDB.
So if we can’t use IMDB as a source; how is it possible that an article gets deleted on the basis of IMDB only?
So now the reliable sources lost from one of the most unreliable sources. SportsOlympic (talk) 20:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Consensus appears to have been to delete for failing WP:V. Consider asking for userfication or draftification, and seeing if you can find a reliable source, first to satisfy WP:V, and then further see advice at WP:THREE. WE don't want to talk about IMDB, except that you might want to add content to IMDB, they have lower requirements than Wikipedia for information. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the close, with particular attention to what the closer says by way of explanation. The closer has no opinion on different text and different sources. So take Spartaz at their word and prepare a draft with better text and better sources for review. Thanks to the closer for clarifying. Also, the statement by the appellant is too long. If it takes a whole page to state your case, you have no theme. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:35, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I added everything on top in 1 sentence. SportsOlympic (talk) 08:32, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
temp undeleted for DRVWilyD 10:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse This seems to be the correct result. Even though the nomination itself wasn't very good, it doesn't mean there can't be consensus to delete. I think this is a fairly weak consensus, and I think Deb's !vote encapsulates exactly where this article lies - not quite ready for mainspace. Considering there's a user willing to adopt a draft, I think a delete and draftify works well, but moving this straight back into mainspace without adding any more sources that pass WP:V much less GNG will lead to a similar result. SportingFlyerT·C 15:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
