Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cedric Tylleman

Add links
Source: 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:10, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cedric Tylleman

Cedric Tylleman (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)
Self-created (or at least self-expanded) bio article about non-notable performer in non-notable roles. Notwithstanding the fact that he keeps restoring an IMDb link as a citation (IMDb is of course an unreliable source, as it is user-updated), but the other citations are his casting resume links and some mentions of his name as a cast member by some dubious websites. There is only one film with more reasonable citations (though still perhaps blogs), Loveshhuda, and his role appears minor. — TAnthonyTalk 16:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the IPs 193.63.25.57 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 193.63.25.101 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) are presumably Cedric Tylleman himself, or a friend.— TAnthonyTalk 16:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 19:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 19:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as searches found nothing and none of this satisfies WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 02:16, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup rather then AfD selection, personally considering an article not worthy is insufficient. 22:18, 4 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.63.25.101 (talk)
Changed stance Keep after reviewing the extensive TV and film credits, although this article should be considered Cleanup poorly structured. 22:20, 4 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.63.25.101 (talk)
Keep – search of coverage in sources. coverage to meet notability requirements. Article needs a tidy up. 23:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.63.25.101 (talk)
As I noted above, the three citations in this search look acceptable to establish Tylleman's role as "Gaurav's Stag Friend" in Loveshhuda (and are used in the article). But they do not establish notability for Tylleman to the extent that he requires a Wikipedia article.— TAnthonyTalk 21:45, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup – sufficient notability, article doesn't do a decent job of representing this. 23:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.63.25.101 (talk)
Comment – Sources: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11], 23:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.63.25.101 (talk)
I have commented on each of these sources within the ref templates themselves, see below.— TAnthonyTalk 22:01, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, all of the above was added here by the IP whom I presume is Cedric himself, it was unsigned and structured to give the appearance of multiple editors, but I will assume in good faith that this was an error of presentation and not an attempt to mislead.— TAnthonyTalk 20:38, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cedric, there is no amount of "tidying up" that can be done here to make you notable as the topic of an article. I will comment on each of the citations if you like, but even the valid ones do not make a case for your being a notable performer in notable roles at this time. Plus it's silly for you to pretend you have "reviewed the extensive credits" and "changed your stance" when you added them to the article in the first place.— TAnthonyTalk 17:54, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And to be clear, I'm not suggesting that your credits are fabricated, I'm suggesting that they do not meet the threshold of notability required for an article. I'm pointing out the inclusion of unreliable citations because they cannot and should not be considered in the assessment of you as a topic.— TAnthonyTalk 18:13, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lacking significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. The sources in my searches, presented here, and presented in the article do not establish the subject's notability. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:49, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. WP:SELFSOURCE it should not be used as a source if it is unduly self-serving. I don't see this currently used as a source in the article.— TAnthonyTalk
  2. ^ "ccp requires 4 speaking roles, featured". Retrieved 4 March 2016.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.63.25.101 (talk)
    Casting website designed to promote actors, who pay a fee to be featured and access audition information. This is perhaps acceptable as an External link resource, but is not a neutral source for credits. That said, even though I am not necessarily disputing the credits therein, I see none asserting the need for a Wikipedia article for this performer, which is corroborated by the lack of any other sources mentioning these roles.— TAnthonyTalk
  3. WP:YOUTUBE. Cedric has himself uploaded a copyrighted clip to YouTube with no copyright notice or assertion of permission granted from the copyright holder. Even if the link itself was acceptable, all it does is show the subject in a nonspeaking role. This is non-notable and original research, as a reliable source has not mentioned the performer or the role.— TAnthonyTalk
  4. WP:USERGENERATED it is unacceptable as a source/citation. The IP editor disputing this deletion has used IMDb twice in this inappropriate manner (to cite a birthdate and a film credit), restoring it despite my removals.— TAnthonyTalk
  5. ^ "genealogy checks out, reliable". Retrieved 4 March 2016.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.63.25.101 (talk)
    I'm not even disputing the subject's familial connections, but as above, a user-updated website/database is not acceptable as a source.— TAnthonyTalk
  6. ^ "notable music platform, proof music maker". Retrieved 4 March 2016.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.63.25.101 (talk)
    I uploaded a recording of my cat crying for people food to Soundcloud, doesn't make him a music artist and doesn't make him worthy of a Wikipedia article.— TAnthonyTalk
  7. ^ "twq role". Retrieved 4 March 2016.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.63.25.101 (talk)
    As with the Youtube citation above, this is a still photo of the performer in a scene from the series. Great, no one is disputing that he was in the show as "Noble Servant" but no reliable source has deemed this role notable enough for mention. This is also a link to copyrighted material posted on the web without apparent permission, and even if OK on that count, is original research.— TAnthonyTalk
  8. ^ "found this, the subject w/ chris martin,coldplay. not sufficient for proof, still makes sense". Retrieved 4 March 2016.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.63.25.101 (talk)
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. — TAnthonyTalk
  9. ^ "subject featured in major signed artist video". Retrieved 4 March 2016.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.63.25.101 (talk)
    As above, still of unspecified music video posted without apparent permission on Tylleman's instagram. Copyright concerns and original research aside, appearing in a music video does not necessarily equate to notability, especially if no journalist source has mentioned the appearance. — TAnthonyTalk
  10. ^ "this is thin, still provides proof location and prof modeling website". Retrieved 4 March 2016.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.63.25.101 (talk)
    As above, self-promotional casting resume site does not assert notability, acceptable only as an External link resource.— TAnthonyTalk
  11. ^ "idem ccp, cn prof. casting database". Retrieved 4 March 2016.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.63.25.101 (talk)
    As above, self-promotional casting resume site does not assert notability, acceptable only as an External link resource.— TAnthonyTalk
  • Delete as none of the sources show notability. The subject of the article hasn't done enough to satisfy
    WP:NACTOR. — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 23:35, 11 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cedric_Tylleman&oldid=1076165624"