Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joey Paul Gowdy (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. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  17:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Joey Paul Gowdy

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Not notable. No significant roles ("Talent Scout #2", extra, etc.), no significant voice work ("additional voices"), no other meaningfull credits ("special thanks", "associate producer", etc.). No coverage in independent reliable sources. (Speedy recreate denied due to age. Prod denied because it is a repost.) SummerPhD (talk) 14:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, insufficiently notable. Hairhorn (talk)
 * Question? Who nominated this article and what was the reason? How can we offer recommendations when the nomination is incomplete? Cindamuse (talk) 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The page was vandalised, I've reverted it, it should look better now. Hairhorn (talk) 00:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. The lack of prominent roles, or of prominent positions on major projects, indicates non-notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:TOOSOON. As an actor, this individual fails WP:ENT, so let's forget about pursuing that aspect... same for his work as producer on a number of minor films. And in looking for sources, it is found WP:GNG is failed., hence failure of WP:BIO and no way to source it as a BLP.  I am actually quite surprised that this survived since January 2007.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Question Has google changed their news / books / scholars / images addresses? Does our Find Sources template need updated? Found 2,890 images on google after clicking on WEB then back on IMAGES on google:
 * http://www.google.com/images?safe=off&q=Joey+Gowdy
 * http://www.google.com/images?safe=off&q=Joey+Paul+Gowdy
 * As a comparison I did a quick search for Ayka Kell (from Make it or Dreat it) using our template, think it needs updating as it returned no results under images. It seems Joey Gowdy studied at the Acting Corps with Ayla Kell in 2006.
 * http://www.google.com/images?safe=off&q=Ayla+Kell
 * Just did that as a comparison. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.0.107.120 (talk • contribs) 05:31, August 8, 2010
 * Just did that as a comparison. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.0.107.120 (talk • contribs) 05:31, August 8, 2010


 * Comment To Anon IP 65.0.107.120: You're correct.... the Find sources for images seems broken, as there are plenty of images found for her through regular searches.  But you might understand that images found through a google search do not equate to news articles when it comes to finding significant coverage in reliable sources.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 14:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I came to the article in question investigating a vandal on the SWG Wiki, of which I am a sysop. I can confirm that any edits by IPs 64.89.*, 65.0.* or 98.95.* are User:JoeyGowdy, the subject of the article. I know you can't take my word for it here but I'm sure a checkuser would tell you the same. If you study the histories of not only the article, but this nomination page you'll see that those IPs have been used to attempt to derail the nomination procedure by removing the AfD tag and by changing other users delete votes to keep ones. Additionally, User:BarbieGurl87 who created the article, is if not a sockpuppet of Gowdy then a close friend acting as a meatpuppet. 86.164.104.152 (talk) 19:26, 12 August 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.