Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Melmer


 * 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. Mkdw talk 01:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

John Melmer

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This was a refunded BLProd, but I honestly can't see where this person ultimately passes notability guidelines. A search doesn't bring up any coverage for him and it appears that his role in the soap opera is so small that he isn't in the IMDb listing and nothing comes up in a search other than this article. Of the sources, none of them would show notability since I'm assuming that they're all primary. The first two are linking to specific news stories, but since he wrote for both publications I have to assume that these are referring to specific articles he wrote for both outlets. Amazon isn't usable as a source in any context (since it's a merchant source) and just listing CBC doesn't really show anything. (Although I think that this is a reference to the soap opera, which ran on CBC.) His books are all self-published through CreateSpace and while being self-published doesn't mean that someone is automatically non-notable, I don't see where he is one of these exceptions. (Which are admittedly rare.) I just don't see where he's notable enough for an article. Being active as a journalist or actor does not automatically make someone notable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  05:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 12:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 12:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 12:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:BIO... agree with nom, a non-notable person. JMHamo (talk) 15:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * This is written very much like an advertisement, and is extremely poorly sourced. The two newspaper citations listed under "references" are just publication name and date while failing to include the title of the article that's being cited, and aren't footnoting anything in the article but are just contextlessly listed — making it impossible for us to verify whether either paper actually published anything substantive about him, or merely namechecked his existence in passing. I just searched ProQuest's "Canadian Newsstand Major Dailies" database, further, and found that he generates exactly zero hits — not a good sign for a Canadian actor and writer. Zero hits on Newspapers.com either (or at least none that were about him, rather than some other unrelated person with the same name). A person does not get an automatic notability freebie on Wikipedia just because they exist — the article needs to be based on reliable source coverage which supports a claim of notability that passes one of our inclusion tests. But this satisfies neither part of that equation. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 16:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. Not notable as the article stands (or rather notability not demonstrated) and I can't find anything that would improve it significantly. There could be offline sources, or ones we all missed, but I tend to doubt it. One quibble,, there are cases where a link to amazon can be an acceptable source, but it would be a source of last resort at best. DES (talk) 21:51, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd have to argue against that, since I can't imagine any cases where it'd be appropriate. If it's for basic data, we can use WorldCat for that. If it's for the reviews (obviously not the reader reviews), we can't use those since we can't really verify how much pruning goes on with the reviews or if they're even a review. The publisher has quite a bit of control over the review section and I've seen them add a small snippet of a non-review article (like an interview or overview) as if it was a review. Sometimes there are interviews, but they usually contain information contained elsewhere. Even in situations where you have article content that covers activities on Amazon, usually that can be covered by news coverage about the content. (Like in Bend, Not Break.) Any of the exceptions to this are insanely rare, to the point where I'd probably consider it "lightening strike" type territory. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  14:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Delete Subject does not meet the encyclopaedia standers Davidwiki12 (talk) 14:48, 31 August 2015 (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.