Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Jewel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 No consensus - keep. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Jewel

Daniel Jewel (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete gushes like an autobiography that drops lots of names, but working with various famous people doesn't rub fame on to you - and the way it is worded never really tells you what this guy did with these big names, being in a play with XYZ could mean XYZ, a big star, was starring whilst you were an extra without a speaking part and not even sharing the stage with XYZ. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

  • weak keep - Yes, the article is bad and has no sources, but a quick search turns up IMDB and BBC entries (which don't establish notability, but do show it isn't a hoax), and a mention here that might be dismissed as trivial. Still, the article has only had two days and I'd like to see it tagged and get a little more time. Torc2 (talk) 01:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • comment - I am a little concerned about potential WP:COI and WP:AUTO issues. The editor who created this seems to be an SPA and has created a couple other articles related to this producer. —Torc. (Talk.) 02:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep- Agree with Torc2. There are reliable credentials and it has only been up for a short time.Taxman214 01:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taxman214 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. Article should have been worked on in a sandbox first. This isnt half-articlepedia.--DerRichter (talk) 04:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
    • It was the editor's first edit. Don't be so bitey. —Torc. (Talk.) 02:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The material present shows notability and time should be allowed for sourcing. Contrary to the above comment, we do allow articles to be developed on-wiki. In fact, the ability to do so on a cooperative basis is the very heart of the wiki principle. DGG (talk) 19:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keilana|Parlez ici 02:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete the source produced by Torc2 is only trivial coverage, and having and IMDB and BBC profile doesn't prove notability. I could not find any additional mention of him in independant sources. It can always be recreated if someone can produce proof of notability. --Asmodeus Samael (talk) 04:27, 16 February 2008 (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.