Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dwen Gyimah


 * 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   Moved to Draft:Dwen Gyimah. I have deleted the resulting redirect. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 12:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Dwen Gyimah

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG and WP:GNGACTOR. Sources in article are all self-published. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Sources in articles are not self publishes. All links and sources have proof tracks. IMDB does not allow anything on there website without it being researched and having the departments of the films contacted to prove accuracy. Date of birth and name has also been provided via wokocommons photo of birth certificate, social media links has been referenced under references, filmography has been directly taken from IMDB Biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanna Mania300 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - Please read WP:UGC - IMDB is specifically mentioned as an example of an unreliable source. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Understood, IMDB references may be deleted from references, contacting the relevant film departments may help?, Social media status proof has also been provided, so has full birth details included, date of birth, full legal name, and birth place, Theatre school link has also been provided. If a problem then an email to the theatre school website to prove his relevant training there can be used if needing further proof. Public interview references and modelling line links have also been provided — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanna Mania300 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I posted the following comment on the Talk page of your article: "The nomination was based on a failure to meet Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines (WP:GNG and WP:GNGACTOR). The sources you have provided are not considered "reliable" - I suggest you read Wikipedia's guide to Identifying Reliable Sources (located here) - if you are unable to provide sources that meet these guidelines, that is usually a good indication that the subject of an article is not considered Notable. Please note that I have personally attempted to find reliable sources (not Self-Published sources such as Facebook, IMDB etc.) for this article and failed, leading to this nomination." Exemplo347 (talk) 22:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - so many references for social media and very little of any worth in establishing notability. It feels as though maybe notability should be there, but searches reveal nothing more.  Velella  Velella Talk 22:12, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, sources provided in the article are mostly social media, and I was unable to find any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to pass the GNG benchmark. GABgab 22:21, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - The number of sources that aren't social media related is greater than the ones which are. Basic examples repeatedly given are the persons proof of age, name and birth also I apologize as I am accidently deleting things as I'm new to wipedia talk, further discussion of evidence is basic proof contact of the theatre school, film departments etc which can all be contacted in relations of providing proof, this artist is not supremely famous but this is a fact page not a page ranking on popularity, hence why further links and references aren't provided, LINKED IN has been provided so has public interviews all provided, basic investigations had been done myskef before moving the article to the live page, DIRECT LINKS to contactable pages has been provided making it valid for the reviewer to use the email addresses associated with the article references links to contact. -Also adding on, if the reviewer agrees to edit the article based on what they have researched and departments that they have contacted then I will agree for the article to be kept by edited by the reviewer to finish of accuracy if accuracy is seen as not finished — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanna Mania300 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I have examined every single source in this article. None of them are Independent, Reliable Sources Exemplo347 (talk) 22:37, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree, a reliable source added was the person drama acadamy website, an article of him in a public interview, wikicommons photographic evidence of his proof of birth, age and nationality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanna Mania300 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Have you examined WP:RS like I suggested? (Also, please stop adding "Keep" to every single one of your comments - it's destroying the layout of the discussion) Exemplo347 (talk) 22:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I will examine it but you keep adding delete to everything even if it is my comment! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanna Mania300 (talk • contribs) 22:49, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Each instance of Delete that you see in this discussion has been added by a separate Wikipedia Editor, not myself. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:53, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

*Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.180.44 (talk) 23:31, 10 August 2016 (UTC) I have searched the name up, it looks like its probably the excess of fame that is regarding notabilty, what the article speaks of looks to have confirmation through the other eferenced links to be honest so there is a fair point on that, however looking at the film credits it looks like they range from medium sized roles to small roles, which again looks as though its the lack of excess work that brings the page into deletion discussion. But its a fair point that the article does speak from a fair point of view that only regards facts — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.180.44 (talk) 23:29, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per WP:GNG. My search found no secondary reliable sources that are independent of the subject and that cover the article subject primarily. The only sources found do not qualify as references to establish GNG, and the article contains none either.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   22:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Striking out votes by possibly logged out user.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   23:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

*Keep Yep agreed, his Imdb has about 4 extra roles, but looking at the dates, they seem to fall behind the main actor role he had on one of his credits, its looking like the extra roles were from previous years and the lead roles are modern. Also wikepedia rules clearly state that an article must not be reviewed on the fame of a person but the hard facts provided. Im confused as we have both read the imdb site but i have managed to read it properly and gain the correct facts — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.180.44 (talk) 23:53, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Zero notability per WP:NACTOR: no significant roles in any of the shows listed (even IMDb says "extra" for most of the roles). No reliable sources found to satisfy WP:GNG. Just another extra trying to market himself. clpo13(talk) 23:41, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Striking out votes by possibly logged out user.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   23:54, 10 August 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.