Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blake Ridder (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Brslxyl (talk | contribs) at 20:28, 13 February 2021 (→‎Blake Ridder: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Blake Ridder

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Blake Ridder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PR-spam. The sources don't really cover him in depth enough to warrant an article, and laughably, the GQ source doesn't even spell his name right which makes me question their general reliability. CUPIDICAE💕 14:12, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:17, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:17, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:07, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Subject lacks evidence of notability in credible sources. Creator of this page and a major contributor appear to be largely focused on creating content on this director and his films, suggesting a conflict of interest Dexxtrall (talk) 15:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very little left after we remove the fluff. Non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 16:24, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TOOSOON. I have found this fully dedicated to the subject and a review from the same source however this is not enough to satisfy the WP:SIGCOV. Less Unless (talk) 17:10, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand why this source https://www.matichon.co.th/prachachuen/news_2444802 isn't reliable enough, as it is dedicated to talk about one of his films and it goes on further talk about his other work and his background. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brslxyl (talk • contribs) 20:12, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's clear from the cited sources on the page that this person has had significant roles in films as an actor as we as filmmaker, including his recent notable feature film Help (2021). Further research on social media shows that he "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following, while I understand large followers on social accounts isn't reliable source, but you only have to quickly scroll his feed and see the interactions. As per entertainers notability, he is also "Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." Looking at his youtube channel with several videos in millions views and comments, several which have received awards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4B00:880F:B200:7DEF:ED85:CBD4:7B71 (talk) 21:19, 6 February 2021 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete, sources aren't really significant coverage, and even it was, WP:BLP1E would probably apply. The now-deleted references look like PR/SEO spam. Perryprog (talk) 23:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply, How does WP:BLP1E apply? There's one source talks about his work on his feature film, and another source talk about his short film Coronavirus, then another talks about another of his short film The English Teacher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4B00:880F:B200:F42C:99AE:7D01:2873 (talk) 03:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please stop attacking me and the way I edit, but instead defend if the subject is notable or not. There is no violation on Wikipedia by editing and creating articles for one person alone. It is also not a violation by asking about the page being patrolled, this is all speculative. Blake has many people that loves his work, you can see that from the comments on his social accounts, I am just one of them who came across that and putting it on Wikipedia. That's all, I avoided using biased words in the article. So I don't see what I am doing wrong here. As this is not paid editing or COI. Tomorrow I may decide to edit on another person that I like the work of, does that mean it is disruptive editing? To delete a page based on the behaviour of the person who created the page isn't the right, you should concentrate on looking at the sources, his work, and the awards he's won from his work, these are not seo spam and pr. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brslxyl (talk • contribs) 13:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did help clean it up, but that's not entirely a justification to keep or delete. I do think that there's more of an argument for notability now than there was when I nominated it for deletion back in 2016, however the main argument for notability is the 2021 film Help. It looks like the Spanish language sources for the COVID-19 film could help argue for a keep, but it's a weak one. If there were more coverage as a whole it would be a lot easier. My thought here is that if this closes as delete, which looks likely, this could redirect to the Help article until more sourcing becomes available. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Blake_Ridder_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1006608263"