Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Joseph Dandurand

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Joseph Dandurand

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

Dandurand lacks notability. This is just like previously deletet articles. Just like previous versions at Jeff Duran, Jeff duran and Jeffrey Dandurand this page fails to show how this man is notable. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Duran. Just like the reposting at Jeffrey Dandurand this reposting appears located to avoid attention. He does now widley use the name Jeff Joseph Dandurand. Acting career shown is two very minor parts as Kid #1 and Boy (uncredited) in single episodes of a >111 episode series The Wonder Years and a small part that was not used in No Man's Land (1987 film). This falls miles short of WP:NACTOR. This article tells us his comedy career does not make him notable, that he was not good enough to get booked. His film making career involves making a vanity documentary and some wishful thinking about an unmade biopic. His songwriting and production is for self released mixtapes and unreleased songs. Nothing notable. His time in a band fell short of notable becuause the band didn't like him and kicked him out, falling short of WP:BAND. Dandurand lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Article has a lot of sources but none are reliable sources that provide any depth of coverage about him. A mix of gossip sites, imdb, primary, listings and a wikipedia mirror. A seach found nothing better. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:34, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Endorse nominee and also Salt. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 01:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Change my vote to speedy, the main contributor seem to not be aware of WP policies and guidelines, I see promotional gains for maintaining such an article. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 02:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G4, G5 or G11 (take your pick) then salt every single possible variation of this spammer's name and edit-filter/blacklist his website. This sh*t again?!? Obvious recreation of self-promotional spam deleted about 10 times under various names, created each time by the accounts of a prolific sock-puppeteer whose latest account (that created this article) started editing only 4 days after his last batch of sock-puppets got indeffed in January. Managed only ~~6 edits~~ 5 edits not related to the subject before the promo-spam started again and every edit since has been about the subject and his "work". Give me a break. Stalwart111 02:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in depth coverage in relaible independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am the person responsible for this article. I linked reliable sources and feel his work with Britney Spears and in media is credible and verifiable. The subject and article is not a repost and is not linked to the unfortunate mess of previous suggested articles. There are countless articles in Wikipedia that supply less credible sources than Jeff Joseph Dandurand. Keep. Seargentgommer (talk) 02:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The subject doesn't inherit notability from Britney Spears and the fact that other stuff exists (that might be in worse shape) is no reason to keep this article. And what, your account just happened to appear 4 days after the last ones were blocked and made only 5 non-Dandurand-related edits before falling back into Dandurand-spam-land (every single one of your edits since has been about the subject). We'll assume good faith, but we're not morons. Stalwart111 05:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While I agree this article is worthy of deletion, none of the speedy deletion reasons are valid. Therefore, I have declined those speedy nominations and restored the AFD template that was improperly removed.

Article does not qualify for G4 because the prior deleted versions are substantially different.
Article does not qualify for G5 because there is no evidence, even behavioral, that sockpuppetry is in play, and it is bad form to nominate for G5 until sockpuppetry is confirmed. I've G5-deleted articles in the past, but this one didn't pass.
Article isn't unambiguously promotional in such a way that a complete rewrite would be required if it were kept.

That said, the article doesn't seem to establish notability. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Technical discussion.

That's fine - your call. I moved your comment to the end because I didn't nominate the article for speedy deletion, nor did I remove the AFD template or close this discussion (though I reverted the close) so an indented response to my comment wasn't really in the right place. The SPI is still open so obviously it's not ready for G5 yet. I still disagree that its substantially different to deleted versions - remember there were about 10 "deleted versions" and this uses the same sort of language and the same sources. But I obviously don't have access to those versions so making a case is difficult. I'm happy for this AFD to continue until the article is deleted and salted. Whatever works. Stalwart111 03:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to list them? I know of 2 other deleted versions (including the subject of the last AFD), and they were substantially different. If others are substantially the same (especially if created by now-blocked socks) I'm happy to reconsider deleting per A4 or A5. I wish I had a way to search for deleted articles with similar names, but unfortunately one must rely on the corporate memory of those who were involved. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the tough part is remembering them all which is why, as I say, letting the AFD run may be the best option. I know there were three versions deleted at Jeff Duran though I think two were exactly the same, created less than a day apart. There were two deleted at Jeffrey Dandurand though I think they were the same. Whether they were also the same as the ones at the other title, I can't recall. There was a redirect deleted at JJ Star though I seem to recall someone trying to use of the redirects as a new article title after one of the main ones was deleted. There were also a few userspace versions that were deleted I think, though I couldn't tell you which socks had them or what they were called. There were also various versions tagged for deletion then amended while various deletion processes were underway. Part of the current article is also similar to what I can remember from Cursed Since Birth which was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cursed Since Birth and I think it came back under a couple of titles too. The reality is that it doesn't take much to make an article different enough from a previous version to avoid the "sufficiently identical" requirement of G4 (a flaw of G4, really). I still think there is plenty of evidence to suggest the latest username is yet another sock-puppet and even disagreeing with that, I think they are single-purpose enough to justify a WP:NOTHERE block. But AFD is not the place for all that. If there's nothing in any of those deleted versions, let's just let this run to its almost inevitable WP:SNOW close. Stalwart111 06:57, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I hatted this because it doesn't have much to do with the AFD itself. Stalwart111 06:57, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of WP:RS. Impressed that he was Kid #1 on Wonder Years though. Logical Cowboy (talk) 23:59, 17 July 2013 (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.