Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dwen Gyimah (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:05, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Dwen Gyimah
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No improvement to the article's content or sourcing since the previous AfD discussion. Passing mentions, roles as an "extra" and mentions in articles written by friends. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:18, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Article has been re-edited by numerous wiki editors and contributors, if the sources were made by 'friends' there would be evidence of that. Also wiki pages are updated on relevant information and sources and not updated for the sake of updating. Many sources are from wiki pages themselves or from notable well known sources. Many actors have also worked as 'Extra's', the sources provided do not label him as an extra other than some roles in imdb which is One source out of the whole list. Also Wikipedia allows articles on importance and notability which has been proven by sources linked and by all contributors who contributed to this article. Hanna Mania300 (talk) 09:51, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The article has been re-edited by one editor - you - and another editor has fixed a few errors, so that first statement of yours isn't accurate at all. Now, this article was returned to a Draft following the previous deletion discussion because you said you'd improve it. So why haven't you bothered? Exemplo347 (talk) 18:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. I don't see reliable sources that are entirely about the subject, just passing mentions. If there is sourcing that talks specifically and directly about the subject, then I'd be happy to re-evaluate. It may be that the subject isn't yet notable - but given that they are a young actor just starting out, that can easily change. Note that I closed the previous AFD, but only procedurally - the article had already been moved over to the draft space for further work. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 19:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment Agreed this article is about a young actor so sources could easily be updated as actor proceeds to be specified in futer articles for futer projects. This article has been drastically improved since the previous afd discussions age, sources, references, links to other wiki pages, has all been added which it did not include before, if you look at the article history you will be able to see that other contributors have re-edited and also improved the article. All article problems had been previously addressed and improved, notability has been proven by public interests from various different well known reliable sources, 'NME' being a big example as well as London Local which all address the subject as a fairy young but well established actor notable enough to be specified in articles for the large remainder of the public. Hanna Mania300 (talk) 09:51, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * We had a discussion about duplicate !votes in the last AfD discussion. Don't start that again please. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:57, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment Thank you for addressing my attention to that. I have added 'comment' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanna Mania300 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Keep. this article meets Wikipedia's notability requirements according to: WP:NASTRO WP:NN, The subject may just need regular updating in due course but in the mean time it passes wiki's standards and checks for articles on living persons, keeping in mind the public attention and age of the person, there is a lack of argument into why the article should be deleted from the encyclopedia. Danny578 (talk) 20:55, 7 February 2017 (UTC)Danny578 (talk) 23:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)  — Preceding Danny578 comment added by Danny578 (talk) • contribs) 20:41, 7 February 2017 (UTC)  — Danny578 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.   Strike !vote from confirmed sockpuppet
 * Maybe you should read WP:NASTRO before you use it as an argument! I note that your !vote doesn't address the specific issues I've raised. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


 * This article was re-edited, sources were re-reviewed, improvements were made, all by other editors. The only editors nominating this for deletion are the same editors from the previous deletion for this article which was dated in 2016. Please read the updated article carefully. This article has lasted a week of being in the main space without an issue by any other contributor, read the updated version in 2017 is clear that its being overlooked. This is an actors article meaning a career. Career's get updated as time goes by, this article should have been suggested for improvement not for deletion, and regardless the sources provided have proven public importance of the individual by not one but numerous sources and articles outside of wiki alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danny578 (talk • contribs) 22:44, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * A) What other editors? I'm looking at the article's edit history right now, so please point out what other editors have made major changes? All I see are the article's creator and a few editors fixing the article creator's mistakes. And, B) - Why do you keep editing other people's comments in this discussion? Exemplo347 (talk) 22:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


 * A) The fact that you are the only two same editors that nominate this for deletion worries me. B) They improved, fixed, deleted, suggested, and added to the article. That is editing the article, making it better and sorting out the references and adding the main importance was what was added and improved by other editors. C) Where are clear indications that the article should be deleted and why was it not nominated by other editors rather than yourselves?Danny578 (talk) 23:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)Danny578 (talk) 23:22, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah well, if you're not going to answer my questions or be open & honest then there's not much I can do. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


 * apologies, editing mistakes which sometimes occur via editing conflicts.Danny578 (talk) 23:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note -To Admin- The article has clearly been improved to a standard where I felt confident enough to move it in the main article space, the fact that this article is being requested to be sAlted by exemplo347 proves my example that he/she has not fully read or viewed the article at all but only nominated it for deletion based on its history, This article is of an actor who is clearly notable and relevant to the public eye and interests, sources are clearly reliable as some of the sources are from the biggest news sources in the UK., as any other wikipedia page, they will be thoroughly updated in due course and when needing to, the fact that these two are the only editors who want this deleted without proper reason confuses me, Exemplo347 please read WP:NN to understand wikipedia's standards. Hanna Mania300 (talk) 09:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sure any Admin who reads this will be far more interested in the fact that you're using multiple accounts to edit Wikipedia. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:24, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment The admins that read this will site out all user accounts, all IP Addresses and further more all contributors who have contributed to the article and tell that we are separate accounts, please stop pushing this matter in a case where you cant even argue relevant factors that needs the article to be deleted, you seem to have made various comments and notes barely proving why the article needs to be at all removed from the enclopedia. Hanna Mania300 (talk) 10:43, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately your argument falls apart there. There has already been an investigation and it has been confirmed that you're using multiple accounts. I've pointed the investigation out on your talk page already, so I'm not sure why you're being disingenuous about it. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:49, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Note - To closing Admin - if this article is deleted, it should be SALTed to prevent its recreation. It has been repeatedly deleted over the last year or so. Exemplo347 (talk) 02:20, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete The sources available are insufficiently reliable to pass GNG; there is no WP:PERSISTENCE or WP:DEPTH of coverage for the subject to pass NACTOR. A certain reliance on inherited notability. Ultimately, on the assumption his career continues on the expected trajectory, this is a case of- in another context- TOO SOON. O Fortuna!  ...Imperatrix mundi.  12:51, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete A few of the sources are not appropriate for Wikipedia. What is left does not pass GNG. I agree that this is TOOSOON. ZettaComposer (talk) 14:39, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete may be notable someday but clearly isn't yet. While we're at it, use of sockpuppet accounts is hardly indicative of a good-faith attempt at an encyclopedic article. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  01:54, 9 February 2017 (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.