Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seth Hall


 * 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. j⚛e deckertalk 00:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Seth Hall

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Similar reasons to Rpclod's nomination for his twin brother. If sole source is YouTube, then this is essentially an unsourced BLP, if there are no valid sources for Bruce Hall, then there are none for Seth too. I do know his famous Underhill photographs, but being in a famous image is not in itself sufficient for notability. The role on Passions doesn't seem sufficent as it was one of the minor Passions characters despite it being an interesting note that one succeeded the other twin in a role. I don't see anything particularly compelling to show that either Hall twin is notable enough to be on Wikipedia - loads of drooling blogs, as per usual for any hottie (male or female), but that's it. Mabalu (talk) 15:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - The only reliable sources consist of trivial mentions and there aren't many of them. Fails WP:BASIC.- MrX 16:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - The only reference is a YouTube video that is no longer available because the user account has been deleted. Even if the YouTube video remained, it would be unlikely to qualify as an authoritative reference. Per WP:YOUTUBE: "Many videos hosted on YouTube or similar sites do not meet the standards for inclusion in External links sections, and copyright is of particular concern. Many YouTube videos of newscasts, shows or other content of interest to Wikipedia visitors are copyright violations and should not be linked." Per WP:NOYT: "YouTube and other video-sharing sites are generally not considered reliable sources because anyone can create or manipulate a video clip and upload without editorial oversight, just as with a self-published website. *** In general, unless the video is not clearly marked as "official" with a name strongly identified with the notable publisher or source, best practice is to treat it as a copyright violation and not use it."--Rpclod (talk) 18:53, 29 July 2014 (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.