Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jevon Sims

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 delete. Kurykh 04:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jevon Sims

Jevon Sims (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Prod, Hoax and Fact repeatedly removed. Subject is a very minor film actor and is claimed to be a notable recording artist. Google does not bear this out. Earlier versions of the article made so many puffed up claims that the article was tagged with Hoax. More recent edits are reducing the demonstrably excessive claims however the article remains unreferenced and excessively promotional. The bottom line is that, stripped of excessive claims, there is little notability here as an actor and none as a recording artist. The sole valid demonstration of notability is the IMDB entry. Is this enough? DanielRigal (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I find it incredible that people would use their time to shoot down the accomplishments of others. I personally know this artist and can account for what is written here. In as much as there are over 20 different genres of music in America, and giving consideration to the fact that the person who questions this artist's validity is not even in the COUNTRY, I find it to be incredulous to be so critical just because you could not find everything listed here on the internet. Since when did the Internet REPLACE adequate and proper research. At last check it was supposed to be utilized as a persuasive suplement. Your continued self-serving blast of people is nothing short of narcissistic. As I read the article initially, it did indeed have unreferenced and some unverifiable sources. However, upon several edit (some of which were actually done by me), I find that those questions have been thoroughly addressed and those that were anot verifiable-deleted. I would ask that this person's information remains in the wikipedia library. Unless, of course, the person DanielRigal who continues this datribe against the artist would like to take a trip to Atlanta, Georgia and verify or disprove the article references for themselves. (Unsigned comment by user:Antavius)
Please calm down. I have nothing against the subject of the article, just like I have nothing against the billions of other people who do not have Wikipedia articles (including myself). If you can demonstrate notability then please do so. If you succeed then the article will not be deleted and it will be a better article at the end of the process. Please remember that you are editing an Encyclopedia and the onus is on all contributors to be able to prove the truth of what they add. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Antavius, roughing the punter is a poor start to saving an article. --A. B. (talk) 02:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Who is this guy?--A. B. (talk) 18:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete or Speedy delete as appropriate: Article itself is self-damning. His "big break" was in "Mama Flora's Family"; check out the IMDB entry for the movie, and he isn't even listed; for comparison, an uncredited policeman and various assistant accounts are. Try and buy the blockbuster hit record "Hollyhood" from any large (or even modest) on-line retail outlet. No availability. "2Crucial" or "Shades of Color" + any of the items listed? Nada. But best of all is this combo: After graduating from C.L.Harper High School Mr. Sims - born August 12, 1979 - formed "Shades of Color", peaking with the song "Freaky Lover"(DaVille Records) in 1992. Sooooo... he graduated from high school before the age of 13? Uh huh. (Wanna bet the birthdate changes soon?) Sounds to me like this whole thing lies between hyperbole and fiction. But I'm just an American... Psinualways forgetsto sign 19:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - per A. B.. While I agree with user:Antavius on certain aspects of research, the checks being made should have turned up significant support. The fact that they are finding nothing is a red flag that the notability of this article needs to be brought into serious doubt. LonelyBeacon (talk) 19:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete or Speedy delete 'cause I say so. Well, actually because this looks like a hoax. Sorry I was misleading, but so is this guy. --EnhancedDownloadBird (Upload) - 19:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as hoax per nom. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Ought to have been a CSD. Delete per non-notability. AvruchTalk 21:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
The reason I never put speedy delete on it is that the article made quite impressive claims that would have indicated valid notability if they had been substantiated. It only dawned on me gradually that things were not as they seemed and even then I was not sure it was right to put speedy delete on somebody with an IMDB entry. I was trying to be fair to the author and give him a chance to sort things out although he clearly doesn't see it that way (see above). --DanielRigal (talk) 21:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
DanielRigal, you did the right thing. When in doubt at all, don't speedy delete. --A. B. (talk) 22:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per A.B -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 21:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • /A.B. stuff/ Then the subject is obviously not notable. Wrap this up now. Besides, the article itself is poorly made. Dlae│here 21:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
    • May I put the final nail in the coffin by reiterating my speedy delete because of clear WP:COI? Check this out: 1) Go to the IMDB link and look at the photo. 2) Look at the name of the photographer for both of the photos (including the one used here) - "Antavius Weems". 3) Look at the user profile name of the person who submitted the original article and reacted so violently to DanielRigal ("Antavius"). 4) Remember that (quote from IMDB) "IMDb Photos are provided to IMDb.com by industry professionals, their agents and legal representatives." 5) Convince yourself that it's a total coincidence. Ummm, Antavius, it's one thing to be dishonest, but a completely 'nother thing to be just not that bright about putting the dishonesty into action in a way that's not totally transparent. Buh-bye, Jevon. Psinualways forgetsto sign 21:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Snowball - adding my voice that DanielRigal also acted properly. LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube (talk) 07:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • No vote: Just want to note that deleting the prod tag is the acceptable way to contest a proposed deletion, although it should be accompanied by an explanation. But unless a prod tag was deleted in an act of vandalism, it should not be replaced. Instead it should be referred to AfD, as it has been. -- Shunpiker (talk) 18:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, insufficiently notable. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:19, 11 December 2007 (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.