Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rick Charls (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.  Sandstein  07:51, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Rick Charls
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP, based exclusively on a YouTube video with no evidence of reliable source coverage shown at all, of a person who's claimed but not properly verified as having set a world record. As always, setting a world record is not an automatic inclusion freebie on Wikipedia just because it's claimed -- reliable source media coverage about the subject has to properly verify that the claim is true, and even the YouTube video (which is of the dive itself) just asserts that the subject is attempting to tie an existing world record rather than to outdo one. This was already nominated for deletion earlier today, and then the creator blanked it so it was speedied accordingly -- but then the same creator recreated it again 20 minutes later, so it's not eligible for immediate speedy as a recreation of deleted content. But the volume of RS coverage needed to make him notable for Wikipedia purposes has not been shown, so it's still a delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete: I let this one off originally because it seemed like there were sources, but on second look I see that none of there are reputable and independent. Consequently, it doesn't meet WP:GNG. I also believe both pictures constitute WP:COPYVIO, and flagged the first one for deletion at commons. ubiquity (talk) 21:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as clearly not a convincing enough article, nothing for the applicable notability also. SwisterTwister   talk  22:12, 31 March 2016 (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.