Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Cormack (2nd nomination)


 * 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. ✗ plicit  06:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Ben Cormack
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

Old unreferenced BLP tagged in November 2017. Despite a keep result of the previous AfD, notability is still not established, there are still no reliable sources in the article, and I found none via G-searches.  Baffle☿gab  05:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC) (categories)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2021 June 1.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 05:46, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete No sources presented in article, none immediately found online. Fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Search brings up other wikis or book seller sites. Actual book The Story of Egmo is also not properly referenced and nothing showing on searches to show gng or sng, so should also be afd. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 14:23, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete – The first vote at the other AfD, by – now locked across Wikimedia for sockpuppetry – insists they performed WP:BEFORE but never provided any evidence. The other votes at the AfD basically amounted to: "Well, I couldn't find any sources that show he's notable, but I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt here." While giving an article a second chance in good faith is fine, there's no sign that notability has since been established, will be established, or can be established.  who voted Weak keep in the previous AfD seems to have put the most work into determining the notability of the subject and cleaning up the article, so I'll ping her for her thoughts on the matter.  TheTechnician27   (Talk page)  17:18, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – The article The Story of Egmo reeks of undisclosed paid promotion and should either be nominated for deletion if it's found not to be notable or drastically reformed to make it not a blatant advert.  TheTechnician27  (Talk page)  17:18, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete No sources presented in article, as per above. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:45, 4 June 2021 (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.