Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sunny Drake


 * 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. With no prejudice towards draftify or userfy requests on WP:REFUND Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:12, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Sunny Drake

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete. WP:BLP, pitched like a public relations advertorial, of a writer and performer. While this looks extensively sourced on the surface, a deeper examination of the sources reveals that it's actually very strongly dependent on blogs and primary sources, such as his own website and Twitter tweets and the self-published websites of organizations or institutions with which he was directly affiliated, with only a very small minority of the references being to properly reliable sources — and even some of the genuinely reliable sources are just glancing namechecks of his existence, rather than coverage that's substantively about him. There's also a lot of reference bombing going on here; for example, the statement "He has performed this piece around the world at various universities, conferences, festivals, etc" alone is referenced to 22 separate citations for each individual performance, again mostly primary sources rather than reliable ones — and the number of footnotes is also significantly padded out by unnecessary reduplication or retriplication of some of the same sources as multiple footnotes rather than one (frex, #19 and #22 are the same thing, as are #49 and #50.) So while it's certainly possible that he might be eligible to keep a properly written and properly sourced article, this article written and sourced this way is not what it takes to make him notable.

As always, neither actors nor writers are automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist, if the resulting article is this heavily dependent on poor-quality references — he has to be the subject of enough reliable source coverage in media to pass WP:GNG. Basically, this is a nuke and pave situation — even if he can be shown as notable enough to qualify for an article, we're still better off starting over from scratch than we are trying to repair all the problems with this version of the article. Bearcat (talk) 19:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 03:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete lots of references to own website and own wordpress. Did he really have 9 highlights in his career in 2015, but none in 2016! Orphan article in mainspace - he's not notable enough to be mentioned in the article about his current employer. --Scott Davis Talk 04:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Heavily relies on the primary sources and doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. --  Dane talk  00:33, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Send to draft A lot of work has been done, but yes it needs a good dose of wikisalts.  Heavily relies on is not the same as only.  Removing 11 or so duplicated references still leaves about 80 unique references (see right), but yes a lot of primaries or at least not independent.  Send to draft and get it mentored into an appropriate article.  We need to encourage contributors, but send them in the correct direction.   Aoziwe (talk) 13:30, 15 December 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.