Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luke Cutforth

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Cutforth

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

Non-notable person. Article creator has asserted notability but has not provided any sources or evidence. Contested PROD and CSD. ItsZippy (talk) 18:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Claims notability but sources do not support this as most claims to notability are cited using the subjects own webpage, rather than 3rd party sources. As an example, claims to work with the BBC yet uses the subjects website to prove this rather than a 3rd party site. Several users have now taken it upon themselves to remove AfD and CSD templates from the page, rather than engage with other editors and defend the article.RandomAct^{(talk to me)} 18:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The primary assertion of notability is being known for his work on "In the House." But the only citation to that is a non-reliable source. I have attempted to locate reliable source coverage for him both under his blogging name, "LukeIsNotSexy" and his full name "Luke Cutforth" and have turned up primarily social media content. I haven't been able to locate significant reliable source coverage. The only information I can find on the BBC is user created content: [1], which clearly is not reliable secondary source coverage. I have also turned up a campaign to promote Luke Cutforth, and perhaps some of the editing activity on Wikipedia is related to the same effort: [2]. Barring someone providing good reliable secondary source coverage to establish notability, this looks like he fails WP:CREATIVE. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 18:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To RandomAct, before accusing the Wikipedia community of using the site for promotion, take a look at what has been said on the talk page! "Information and evidence for the aforementioned contacts in work will be added very soon. Reports from the likes of BBC are generally released later on to avoid copying, or to await copyright clearance. There are several press reports on this subject if you delve further into search results." Also think about this one, since your tone of writing seems to dismiss the validity and skill of the subject. 'This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because no human is unimportant, and it is purely lack of server space that we all don't have Wikipedia pages. This is a young man who will go far in the future, but his past (and present) should not be forgotten.' Lastly, as a Wikipedia Administrator, I would have thought that you of all people would have noticed that the site you claim to be 'promoting' the subject by use of Wikipedia has been dormant since February. Here is an example of a source to verify some claims of the article. [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garycake (talk • contribs) — Garycake (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Since this page is for a discussion of the merits of the article I will reply to your points that fall under this heading. Firstly we cannot accept the promise that reliable sources are forthcoming as a reliable source. Once the BBC or another 3rd party source release information that will change things, but until then my issues with the sources stand. Secondly I would like to point out that I am not, not I have I ever been, an Administrator here. It would appear ConcernedVancouverite has done some digging to find reliable sources and has shared his/her results above. I would respond to your remaining point but I must confess I don't know what you are trying to say. Lastly, please keep posts on this page to information related to the potential deletion of the article. RandomAct^{(talk to me)} 19:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hi Garycake. I have read and appreciate the comment on the talk page which states Cutforth is working with the BBC, BFI and Tim Burton. However, the comment provided no sources to back this up with. If a reliable source was presented, then the assertion would hold more weight. As it is, most of us find it hard to accept that Cutforth is working with these figures without some sort of evidence. In any case, if the assertion made is true, that is still not enough for the article to be kept. Not only does what is asserted about his work have to be the truth, it also needs to be notable. At present, no reliable, third-party sources have been presented which demonstrate such notability. Therefore, the article is a strong candidate for deletion. If a good source (and by good, I mean not self-published, reliable, not connected to the subject, and the like) can be found which verifies the claim made on the talk page and provides notability, then there is scope for keeping it. Until then, I stand by my nomination for deletion. ItsZippy (talk) 18:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. Hairhorn (talk) 02:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If this young man becomes notable, in a few years' time someone with no COI will write about him here. Until then we need nothing. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Excessive SPS-based detail is not a substitute for legitimate evidence of notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not sufficiently notable. ItsZippy sums it up very well. Edwardx (talk) 17:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - subject does not meet notability criteria for biographies. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article has a massive reference section populated exclusively with unreliable sources. I can find no reliable sources to meet verifiability which is fundamental to Wikipedia. -- Whpq (talk) 16:59, 28 September 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.