Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gaylord Dingler

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:34, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gaylord Dingler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

I'm somewhat tempted to G3 this as an elaborate hoax: all I can find are low-quality YouTube videos of this alleged person from 2008. The article content doesn't inspire confidence that this so-called "stand-up comic" isn't a ruse. though given how old the article is it might well be worthwhile to bring to AfD. There's a lot of unsourced content in this (apparent) BLP. With regards to notability, I can't find anything on "Gaylord Dingler" when using newspapers.com or google news search. This article subject fails WP:BASIC, WP:ENTERTAINER, and to a certain extent the entirety of WP:V. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:03, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:03, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:03, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nom; quality reliable, secondary sources are practically non-existent. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 19:05, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, 0 hits in newspapers.com, so I agree with the nominator. Geschichte (talk) 20:52, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The first version looks like the groundwork for a mockumentary then "currently in production"; fifteen years later, it's no more convincing. -- Hoary (talk) 22:58, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Either this is a hoax, or it's a BLP violation so egregious it's well over the line into outright libel. There is a lone secondary source which in turn was picked up by the BBC, but it looks strongly to me like someone laying the groundwork for the mockumentary and the BBC (not for the first time) cut-and-pasting something that sounds interesting without bothering to factcheck for themselves. ‑ Iridescent 11:50, 11 October 2021 (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.