Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dylan Turner (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. As Dank said, G4 does not apply here because the previously-deleted version was different. Non-admins can't see this, but the most recent revision was certainly an improvement, more context and several references (rather than just 1 ref to IMDb).  Jamie ☆ S93  17:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Dylan Turner
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable actor/singer. Appears to have only one role of any note, and that's just in a single London production. Most references are basically stubs or agent listings. Not enough experience to merit his own article yet. If and when he gets more fame, then we'll rvisit this. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Update: It appears this article has been deleted through AfD before. Marked for speedy delete. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've declined the speedy deletion; the previous article had no independent sources and didn't go into detail; this article is an improvement. - Dank (push to talk) 16:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter! It was deleted via AfD. By Wikipedia policy, it stays deleted unless the AfD is reversed by deletion review. You cannot single-handedly overturn the AfD! - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The policy you're referring to says: "A copy, by any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion, provided the copy is substantially identical (bolding mine) to the deleted version and that any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted." As I pointed out, the old version was rejected for having no sources, and the new version has sources, so it's not a G4. I personally follow a 1RR policy, so I'd appreciate it if someone else would remove the tag. - Dank (push to talk) 19:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Not disputing your word, but could you show links to these to show the differences? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * By Wikipedia policy, it stays deleted unless the AfD is reversed by deletion review. And what policy exactly contains this language? WP:DELETE on the contrary states "If an article was deleted for lacking content or for having inappropriate content (this applies to most speedy deletions) and you wish to create a better article about the same subject, you can simply go ahead and do so, with no need for review. It is especially wasteful to go to deletion review over an unsourced stub when the alternative of creating a sourced article is available." WP:DRV is mostly for overturning deletions to restore a deleted version. A recreation of a different article under the same name doesn't mandate DRV. MLauba (talk) 19:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the problem is whether or not this version is substantially different from the one previously cconsidered and deleted via AfD. I've recreated articles that were AfD-deleted before, but always gone through DRV first. Even so, this current version still desrves deletion, no matter what the first version was. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, but not a speedy deletion. MLauba (talk) 20:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, let's just forget the speedy thing and proceed with the AfD instead. I think I'm getting caught up in semantics here anyway. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- - Dank (push to talk) 16:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  -- - Dank (push to talk) 16:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Still fails WP:ENTERTAINER by a considerable margin. Best claims to notability so far are as a supporting actor in a West End stage production of a notable film, and an unspecified credit in a notable film, which is a long way off the requirement of "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions." If someone does find enough claims to warrant notability, the promotional language, subjective phrases such as "a natural academic" and name-dropping will have to go. (Also, although this does not directly affect the AfD outcome, the article author only seems to write articles about people with the surname of "Turner" which makes me suspect family COI issues.) Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Not familiar with the first version that was deleted but this version fails WP:ENTERTAINER. No indication of significant roles or any substantive contributions to his field.  Lots of references but they dont add up to notability here.--RadioFan (talk) 19:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete -Sources don't pass the reliable sources policy and hence cannot establish how the subject passes WP:ENTERTAINER. MLauba (talk) 20:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, not even close to WP:ENTERTAINER - Vartanza (talk) 05:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:57, 31 May 2009 (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.