Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luke Kelly-Clyne


 * 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. Killiondude (talk) 06:22, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Luke Kelly-Clyne

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Google search reveals no independent in-depth third-party coverage, just the usual vanity hits.

This article appears to be part of a walled garden being constructed by the paid editor. (Declaring that one is being paid is better than not declaring it, but doesn't make the resulting articles neutral or their subjects notable.) Robert McClenon (talk) 03:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss  fortune 04:33, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss  fortune 04:33, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


 * While the dissenting opinion may be valid, the subject maintains an extensive collection of his own published work by a reputable news outlet--if there is no reliable third-party coverage on the subject then would not his work having been published and reviewed by other editors not stand to substantiate the subjects' notability? His personal work as a television producer is also noted and substantiated through IMDB: does that not qualify as a reputable source?
 * While I'm sure it appears that a paid contributor would have some kind of implicit bias in the proceedings of posting this simple bio page, why then is the option to disclose pay even allowed by Wikipedia at all? If my willingness to disclose my pay is itself the reason why I cannot contribute than what if any is my incentive for disclosing my pay? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pescobosa (talk • contribs) and copied from talk page by.
 * No, work written by the subject cannot be substituted for sources written about the subject. If there is no reliable third-party coverage, we can't have an article, full stop. IMDB is not a wholly reliable source.
 * The ethics of paid editing are rather outside the scope of this discussion, but to answer your questions: we give paid editors the option to disclose and edit because it's a fundamental principle of Wikipedia is that anyone can edit, and also because practically speaking it is difficult to stop them. However, as you should be aware from reading WP:COI and WP:PAID, the community as a whole strongly discourages paid editing. There is no "incentive" for disclosing. Wikipedia is an open community that operates on the assumption of good faith. Not disclosing your paid edits, as required by the terms of use and community consensus, would likely lead to a loss of editing privileges for abusing that trust. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 10:36, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. No indication of notability at all. A blatant misuse of Wikipedia for promotion. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 10:15, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong delete being paid by someone to create Wikipedia articles to promote them is a violation of the underlying principles of Wikipedia. Being paid to create articles that generally increase knowledge would be acceptable, but a diffent endevor than we see here. IMDb is not at all a reliable source, and an article created by someone who does not understand this needs to be removed post haste.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:28, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 28 December 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.