Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghost Rider (motorcycle stuntman) (3rd 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.

Ghost Rider (motorcycle stuntman)
The result was SPEEDY DELETE, G4 (recreation of deleted material). postdlf (talk) 06:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC) AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Reposted for at least the third time. See Articles for deletion/Ghost Rider (motorcyclist) and Articles for deletion/Ghost Rider (motorcycle stuntman). I believe it has also been speedily deleted under various alternate titles at least once before. The problem is sources. As he is anon/persona-no-grata, its difficult to find any sources to his existence, except a couple of DVD's on Amazon and a few blogs. Secondly, he didn't get out of Stockholm much, let alone Sweden, so the extensive WP:RS if they exist are in Swedish. I conclude that the only practical way we could address the need for an article is if one existed on Wikipedia Scandinavia - which doesn't. Summary: Lack of sources = fail of notability criteria Trident13 (talk) 02:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. Note that the  tag should not have been removed here. Without any new significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, there is no reason to even have this discussion for a third time. Anonymously-produced DVDs of an anonymous rider in black doing stunts under the name "Ghost Rider" do exist on Amazon and Netflix, but that alone fails Notability (films). The meme whereby every time somebody in Sweden sees a motorcyclist in black (a common sight) doing stunts (a common sight) and thinks that might be the Ghost Rider might be an interesting subject, but the meme has never been the subject of any coverage in reliable sources.  This needs to be salted so we don't have to keep re-debating it. If a genuine reliable source comes along some day, an article can be proposed then. --Dbratland (talk) 04:01, 30 June 2010 (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.