Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jon Moses

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. Sandstein 06:50, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Moses

[Hide this box]New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

WP:VANISPAMCRUFTISEMENT, This is a well disguised advert. Many of the references are regurgitated press releases, Playbills and PR material. This is WP:BOMBARD If it can be rescued, so be it, but adverts have no place on Wikipedia.

If being a TV talent show finalist confers notability then perhaps he has a little, but this article does not reflect that.

Does Moses even pass WP:NACTOR? Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 06:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this was new reviewer Doric Loon's accept so he might want to comment here. I am frustrated as I spent 90 minutes cleaning this up, only for the article's creator Classiclady76 to revert those changes, twice. I presume she is Moses' agent or has some other close connection and therefore should see WP:OWN, WP:COI and WP:PAID. If you look at Commons you'll see that her 369 edits there are all addition of images of Moses. Given her reverts, the article as it stands is therefore not in its best form and I haven't the motivation to unpick the mix of retrograde editing and addition of potentially useful references that Classiclady has added. The refbombing will make it difficult for an impartial reviewer to review the references for notability. If anyone wants to do that, probably best take a look at the last good version. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 08:11, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: ClassicLady is an SPA account so WP:COI and WP:PAID more than likely apply. Checking of references shows primary sources, press releases and mentions. For this rising pantomime star, its WP:TOOSOON. Let him build his filmography and awards. --Whiteguru (talk) 08:36, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (from accepting reviewer) I am indeed a relatively new AfC reviewer (but not new to Wikipedia). I accepted this on the basis of citations to newspapers, which when I followed the links did indeed deal primarily with the subject and have photos of him. But I was hesitant, because they were very small local newspapers (York Post etc.). I agree that the article gives more hype than his achievements merit, but I still think he is sufficiently in the public eye to be covered. On the other hand, if the suspicion of paid copywriting turns out to be true, I would see that differently. Certainly uncited claims like "...has also become a highly demanded brand spokesman..." are problematic. So if you think I made a wrong call, that's OK. --Doric Loon (talk) 10:38, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per a message on her talk page, ClassicLady claims to have no COI. She says she met him once. I will assume good faith. She said she was happy to see the article restored to how it was before her recent problematic edits so I have reverted to the last good version and re-applied the AfD etc. tags. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:53, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:43, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:43, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as Nominator: I will not be going through the welter of references again. For good or ill it is up for deletion discussion. I understand the joint frustrations of Curb Safe Charmer and Doric Loon. I think we now need to leave it in the hands of the community who will come to a conclusion, I hope. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 21:07, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. JSFarman (talk) 18:07, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, references all appear to rely on mentions-in-passing but nothing substantial with independent content. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:02, 3 August 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.