Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rian Antonelli


 * 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. Kurykh (talk) 02:42, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Rian Antonelli

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable stand-up comedian and actor. Basic searches for sources did not pull up anything showing that he has received sufficent coverage in reliable sources to show that he passes notability. The creator (whose name implies this might be autobiographical) has been given opportunity to address the concerns but they simply deleted all tags/advice without addressing the concerns, so I am bringing this to a formal deletion discussion. Mabalu (talk) 11:31, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

We just started working on this page today, please give us more time to complete this article on Rian Antonelli. Clearly it isn't complete yet. Things take time, please understand.

Thank you, I appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adriano2591 (talk • contribs) 12:01, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Given this is a new article, I would suggest the article be given time to develop and further references added. Noting the relevant recommendations regarding bringing new articles straight to AfD "Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD." Allangdall (talk) 12:28, 31 March 2017 (UTC)Allan
 * — Allangdall (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment - If I may put forth my humble opinion, I believe the page isnt suitable for Wikipedia yet. The page seems to have been directly created without following the advised procedure of making a sandbox article first and then sending it for review. Furthermore, the article is written in an almost-autobiographical way, such as the details of 'early life' that are without any references. An article, howsoever detailed or formally created it may be, requires references to add to its credibility. The "Rainbow Doritos trolling" reference may not be sufficient. If the page-creator and/or contributor is either involved with the person mentioned in the article or the person himself, the best course of action would be to copy the information to your user sandbox and working on it for how ever long you want without the burden of a deadline, keeping in mind a neutral point of view. If you feel like the article is still eligible for staying up, references from reliable sources could be added within the deadline. But as it stands, I'm leaning towards deletion. I say this from personal experience since the first article I created had been deleted too, but it had been a great learning experience for me. Jiten Dhandha  •  talk  •  contributions  • 12:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - In the editor's own words: "We are trying to build his online brand and online presence." I have no objection to this page being userfied or done via a draft or Articles for Creation, but given that the creator has just said pretty explicitly that it is an advertising/promotional page, and that the subject NEEDS his "online brand building up" (paraphrasing), it seems pretty clear that we have a problem article here. Unfortunately, it seems a clear cut case of Too Soon. I will note that I do believe that Adriano2591 has made their edits in good faith, but hasn't really grasped that Wikipedia is not a promotional tool, but a record of persons and things whose notability has been proven and established enough that they can be shown to merit a Wikipedia article. Mabalu (talk) 13:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - WP:TOOSOON. Wikipedia isn't the place to "build [an] online brand and online presence". -  Julietdeltalima   (talk)  20:30, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is meant to have articles that have recieved coverage in reliable sources, not to be used as a viehecle to prompt such coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:53, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a platform to help emerging entertainers build their "brand and online presence" — passage of a specific notability criterion comes first and then the Wikipedia article follows, not vice versa. No prejudice against recreation in the future if and when his notability and sourceability get to where they need to be, but right now it's WP:TOOSOON at best. It's not "use Wikipedia to help you promote yourself while you try to make it big", it's "make it big and then you'll get a Wikipedia article". Bearcat (talk) 14:18, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:TOOSOON, we should wait to see if this person can build up their notability before creating an article about them. ThatGirlTayler (talk) 22:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - This falls well below Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. There is no significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 23:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - He does not seem to meet the notability criteria for WP:Entertainer.  CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   21:05, 6 April 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.