Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lewis Oakley


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:41, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Lewis Oakley

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP of a person with no strong or properly sourced claim of notability. As written, this literally just states that he exists, and references it to one piece of media coverage about him posing for a photographer — and he's simultaneously the bylined author of that piece of coverage, and is therefore writing about himself. The simple fact that he can be shown to exist does not, however, automatically qualify him for a Wikipedia article in and of itself, and media coverage has to be independent of him to count toward notability as a person does not get to "cover" himself into Wikipedia — so there's simply not enough substance, or enough reliable sourcing, present here to justify an encyclopedia article. Bearcat (talk) 18:03, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Update: Creator has now tried to reference-bomb this by padding it with a contextless linkfarm of every single web URL they can find that happens to contain Oakley's name at all — but they clearly lack understanding of what kind of sources support notability and what kind of sources don't, because every link provided is still one of (a) a piece where he's the bylined author and not the subject, (b) a piece where he's the interview guest speaking about a topic other than himself, and thus isn't the subject, (c) an article where he merely gives brief soundbite about a topic other than himself, and thus still isn't the subject, or (d) not a reliable source at all. And they're all just linkfarmed at the bottom of the article, rather than being correctly used to footnote any of the article's content. None of this bolsters the case for inclusion at all — a person gets a Wikipedia article by being substantively the subject of third-person coverage in reliable sources that are independent of him, not by being the author of the sources or a soundbite-giver in coverage of other things or by getting blogged about. Bearcat (talk) 15:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:47, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom; fails the WP:GNG and appears to be a violation of WP:PROMOTION & WP:SELFPROMOTION - GretLomborg (talk) 22:04, 17 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per the excellent case made by nom. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 06:02, 18 August 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.