Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brent Everett


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 02:12, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Brent Everett

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sourcing is in passing, routine notices and / or WP:SPIP. Fails WP:BASIC / WP:ENT. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:06, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose: Hugely notable artist. Instead of deleting the information, try to improve with more reliable sources. werldwayd (talk) 01:44, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There have to be reliable sources to improve it with before "instead of deleting the information, try to improve with more reliable sources" is the magic word. Bearcat (talk) 19:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 01:51, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 01:51, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:00, 20 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. The references here are primary sources and glancing namechecks of his existence, not reliable source coverage about him. And it's not enough to just say SOFIXIT, because anybody can simply say that about any topic — saving a badly sourced article does not hinge on simply theorizing that maybe better sources might exist, it hinges on showing hard evidence that better sources definitely do exist. So I'm willing to reconsider this if somebody can actually show a better quality of sourcing than my searches have been able to find — but it's not enough to just say that the sourcing needs to be improved if you don't show any actual evidence that the sourcing can be improved. Bearcat (talk) 19:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * delete source it or lose it. Spartaz Humbug! 22:25, 24 March 2019 (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.