Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theo Greenly


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 18:16, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Theo Greenly

 * – ( View AfD View log )

WP:BLP of a writer and journalist, not properly sourced as passing our notability criteria for writers or journalists. The notability claim here is that he exists, with no indication that he's achieved any of the distinctions (noteworthy awards for his work, third party reliable source coverage analyzing the significance of his work, etc.) that it takes to turn existence into notability -- and the references are two pieces of his own work metaverifying its own existence and a staff profile on the self-published website of his own employer, which are not notability-supporting sources. It also warrants note that this started out in 2012 as an article about an actor who was never properly sourced as passing NACTOR in the first place, until it was turned into "actor and journalist" in 2019 without providing any sources to verify that the actor and the journalist were actually the same person, and then almost a full year later the same single purpose editor who had added the journalist stuff stripped away the actor stuff as "unverified" without providing any sources to verify that the actor and the journalist weren't the same person either — and then this year somebody else restored the original actor article, following which the SPA reverted it back to the journalist again following a failed attempt to prod it for "personality rights". So I can't tell whether this is an article about an actor turned journalist who hasn't been properly shown to pass our notability standards for either occupation, or whether (more likely) the actor and the journalist are two different people with the same name and the actor's article underwent a slow motion hijacking. But since the actor version was never properly sourced as notable in the first place, I can't justify reverting back to that -- but regardless of whether actor Theo Greenly and journalist Theo Greenly are one person or two, notability as either an actor or journalist has never been properly demonstrated or sourced by any version of this article. Bearcat (talk) 17:10, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:10, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:10, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:10, 18 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete - so I'm 95% sure they are two different people. The reporter has been the subject of a number of interviews, during which he details his career path and makes no reference to having been an actor (like this one). I see now reason why a journalist would detail their experience in media and purposely exclude a career in television. So I think it's safe to assume we're taking about two different people. That said, I don't think either of those people is notable. I think the reporter is closer to meeting our inclusion criteria (with an argument per WP:ANYBIO that he has made a notable contribution to his field of regional journalism) but I don't think we're there with the sources that are available.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 02:33, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Stalwart111.4meter4 (talk) 16:35, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Stalwart111.Fails WP:GNG irrespective of whether they are two or one neither of those people is notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:53, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:BIO per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 03:27, 25 September 2021 (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.