Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Deyell

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. Stifle (talk) 09:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Deyell

Lots of name-dropping and details plans but the sources are not reliable or mention in passing and some are flat-out wrong. IMDb shows a much less impressive career than is indicated. Doesn't seem to pass WP:BIO. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest Gut or Rewrite. Articles are deleted on the basis of what they could be, rather than how they are, no? The IMDB page seems to establish notability. But the article as written is puffery. It brags, it's far longer than it needs to be, and even if the information is accurate, much of it is not noteworthy or interesting. He's an actor who's a member of the Screen Actors Guild? Wow! Much of the information seems far too detailed not to have been written by the article's subject. Could easily be sliced down to 2 paragraphs. Hairhorn (talk) 07:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you think the IMDb page looks like enough, I guess we'll agree to disagree. SAG's requirements aren't really that much, but it doesn't look like it's salvageable. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

... you may have missed the sarcasm in my "wow".... Hairhorn (talk) 22:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, missed that. You never know. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The two sources listed give only fleeting mentions of Deyell, establishing him as a character on the periphery of other people's notability. 1 and 2. The external links provided were largely irrelevant and redundant. I stripped most of them out anyway. A pretty extensive search on Google and Lexis confirms that he exists, but not that he's notable. — Bdb484 (talk) 00:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Minor acting roles, no evidence of writing/producing/directing any notable works. Fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:ENTERTAINER. Tassedethe (talk) 08:44, 20 May 2009 (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.