Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blake Ridder (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. Daniel (talk) 10:17, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Blake Ridder
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

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)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:17, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:17, 6 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep A mistake of incorrectly spelled name should not define its reliability. There are plenty of other sources that heavily discusses him and his work such as the one from Matichon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brslxyl (talk • contribs) 14:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:07, 6 February 2021 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * Delete Very little left after we remove the fluff. Non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 16:24, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * , Filmdaily is almost certainly an unreliable source. It looks like they accept "native advertising, guest posts, sponsored content and partnerships", and the site is also on Prax's SEO list. Perryprog (talk) 23:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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, 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)
 * 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)


 * Delete - nowhere near enough evidence to pass WP:GNG. Maybe WP:TOOSOON but no reason to keep at present.  Velella  Velella Talk 18:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - meets neither WP:CREATIVE nor WP:GNG so there is no criteria-based reason for keeping this Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep For the person who makes the final decision to keep or delete, please observe those that said Delete only mentioned not notable, and was not able to defend each source specifically, his notable film(s) specifically, or his prolific awards from his films. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4B00:880F:B200:6917:16F2:FA25:D1FB (talk) 02:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * this page was also edited by an administrator ReaderofthePack without any issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4B00:880F:B200:F42C:99AE:7D01:2873 (talk) 03:41, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Delete - Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG, with decidedly unreliable sourcing. Desperation to get this article indexed and kept makes me suspicious for covert conflicts of interest. Wikipedia is not for promotion of non-notable people. --Jack Frost (talk) 09:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * as per above - "Spanish language sources for the COVID-19 film could help argue for a keep", as well as his feature film Help (2021) which has now been decoded as a Keep. These are all reliable sources. You are attacking on the individual who contributing to the article more than its notability defence. Brslxyl (talk) 20:28, 13 February 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.