Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bey Logan

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:18, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bey Logan

Bey Logan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG, with no assertion of notability, or sources to verify content, along with myriad

• Delete - it's surprising that this article has survived for so long with no evidence of notability. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:55, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Subject is only mentioned in passing in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 22:14, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No coverage in reliable sources. KGirlTrucker81 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 23:48, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Meh I wrote the article back before I really understood Wikipedia. I would have AFDded the page myself if I agreed that it didn't meet GNG, but virtually any fan of HK cinema in the UK and Ireland will have heard of him, as he did virtually all the audio commentaries for Hong Kong Legends, and has written several books on the subject. It's not true that the article makes no assertion of notability, as these points are made in the article. But it is true that it would be difficult to rewrite it as a proper biography without using primary sources. I would say redirect, but he's attained semi-notability for a whole bunch of little things that would not make appropriate redirect locations by themselves. So I'm cool with it being deleted. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:46, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That said, it definitely could be rewritten with the biographical statements he peppers on various audio commentaries (that I doubt any of the previous delete !votes have heard); these are primary sources and are not ideal, but are not non-RS. I largely grew out of them eight or nine years ago, though, and only brought like five of the relevant DVDs with me when I came to Japan, so doing it myself (right now) is out of the question. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It needs trimming to what is sourceable, but Logan is an acknowledged expert in his field and well enough known to be included. Some sources that could be used: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. --Michig (talk) 06:16, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• 1 is a primary source (by the subject), 2 is a column written by the subject himself, 3 is an event listing with 1 sentence about the subject, 4 is a book review but the coverage about the author is sparse, 5 is an interview again and a primary source. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as there's still not enough for any actual convincing independent notability, even the sources listed here above, the first one is an immediate interview. SwisterTwister talk 06:54, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:17, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:17, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:17, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:17, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is a bit of an unfortunate case as there are clearly scarce reliable secondary sources to prove notability. On the other hand, we do have primary sources. I though for a while but I think I will go with the fact that reliable secondary sources are needed for notability. There isn't one particular redirect target either, otherwise I would have recommended it. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:14, 8 August 2016 (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.