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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Donn[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject is an actor and web-designer, but there is no indication that he passes WP:CREATIVE or other notability guidelines. Given that the subject's webpage had a Wikipedia logo (linking to the article) slapped on it at the same time that the article was created, I suspect the article may be promotional in intent. There may be a COI with the article creator. Blueboar (talk) 12:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as spam, but assume good faith with the article creator; assume that s/he isn't familiar with our policies. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 14:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... I would concur with that... I note that the user has created another article (Don Smoothey) with similar issues. Looking at both articles, he is clearly just cut and pasting another source (I suspect it is the self-published history of Chelsea Masonic Lodge, as that is cited at both articles). Blueboar (talk) 14:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen respectfully, the copy for both sites that understandably is causing concern was originally compiled by myself for inclusion in The Chelsea Lodge book celebrating the lodges 1st 100 years written by Keith Skues a well known British broadcaster. The book sold out with profits going to various charities, Chelsea Lodge No.3098 is a well known London based Lodge meeting at Freemasons Hall, It was consecrated on 19 May 1905 and its members have & do represent most branches of show business. I would welcome your advice on how best to present both these site for approval to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valleyman1970 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, See WP:Donating copyrighted materials for how to properly sort out any copyright issues related to these articles. Secondly, you need to show how these people are WP:notable in there own right - not just by association with the lodge. noq (talk) 21:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly... Have they ever been written about by the media? Are there reviews of their performances by critics? Have they ever won awards for their work? Blueboar (talk) 20:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability, COI and for being promotional. Eeekster (talk) 20:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Keep and correct, as the issues of COI and sense of being promotional, while quite legitimate, are both addressable. The first issue is corrected by the author understanding WP:COI and refraining from further edits. The second issue is addressed through correction of style with regular editing. As for notability, the sources provided in the article are encouragement that WP:GNG and WP:BIO can be met... again, through regular editing. I'll be glad to tackle it myself and come back to offer the results here at the AFD, as cocrectable issues are not a mandate for deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Michael may I thank you most sincerely for editing and correcting Ray Donn, appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valleyman1970 (talk • contribs) 10:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. It is quite rare that a film extra receives any attention for simply being a film extra, so I was quite aurprised at articles that specifically quoted him... in the several different news sources... in 2003, 2004, and 2005, but I can suppose that is due to his being so prolific in his field. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 11:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael's edits are a significant improvement... I am still not sure that notability is established, but the WP:COPY issues are resolved. Blueboar (talk) 13:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Praise nom in the hope that other nominations, if they must use the irrelevant (as per MQSchmidt) COI as a rationale, at least use follow nom's example in listing it last. Shame about the deletion vote that used the tautology "COI and for being promotional", but I am grinning inside. Oh, and stunt double for David Suchet as Hercule Poirot sure sounds like an easy job. Not known for leaping about, is our Hercule. I could not swear to it, but I would bet real money that he was more in the way of a Photo double (redirects to 'Body double'. Anarchangel (talk) 04:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 06:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.