Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cedric Tylleman


 * 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)

Cedric Tylleman

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * By the way, the IPs and  are presumably Cedric Tylleman himself, or a friend.— TAnthonyTalk 16:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  Vipinhari  &#124;&#124;  talk  19:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions.  Vipinhari  &#124;&#124;  talk  19:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as searches found nothing and none of this satisfies WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister   talk  02:16, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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:         , 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 03:49, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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.