Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Fletcher (Comedian & Entrepreneur)

:{{la|Ben Fletcher (Comedian & Entrepreneur)}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ben_Fletcher_(Comedian_%26_Entrepreneur) Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Ben Fletcher (Comedian & Entrepreneur)}})

Individual appears to be non-notable per wiki guidelines. Existing sources are not reliable as per WP:RS. Onel5969 (talk) 16:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Delete - Fails notability requirements. reddogsix (talk) 16:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

:*Comment Page covers an individual who has done notable work within the Media industry and is continuing to. Wikipedia is about sharing information between people, while this person may not be known by some people it is no reason to delete a page, notability is something which each individual will see differently, there are many people who find this individual to be notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MartineHiepo (talk • contribs) 16:54, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

::*Comment - You have failed to establish notability per Wikipedia guidelines. You may see notability as different than an other, but Wikipedia is very specific in how it defines it and you have failed to demonstrate it for the individual. reddogsix (talk) 17:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Delete. I do not see sufficient coverage in third-party reliable sources indicating how the subject meets notability guidelines. The entire article is sourced to websites associated with the subject, YouTube videos, etc. I would also suggest deleting the article on the author's self-published book/"as of yet unproduced" television show, BHS Bellwood. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Delete. No evidence of significant secondary coverage per WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Heavy citation/linkage to of official website or commercial sites appears promotional. --Animalparty-- (talk) 17:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• Delete Per nom. there is not reliable coverage to establish notability. --Clean-up-wiki-guy (talk) 16:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• Keep More information to be added to the article along with further evidence and reliable sources. Article incomplete

Keep There is a lot more you can include in this article.

Keep With sourced information that does exist, it is possible to write about the history and uses of this product. H

• Delete - all of the online sources, and all but a single paper source, are self-published. This articles fails all of our guidelines. Wikipedia is not "about sharing information between people..."; it is an encyclopedia. That "this person may not be known by some people" is most certainly a good reason to delete an article. Wikimedia is a private charity, which while open to the public, doesn't have to take in everybody. One would not suppose one could rush into a Girl Guides campground, an Anglican church chancel, or an YHA youth hostel bunk room without permission, all the while telling insulting jokes. How can somebody assume they could do the equivalent to Wikipedia? Furthermore, we are based on objectivity, not subjectivity. Bearian (talk) 17:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
• KEEP - Wikipedia is funded by donations, it is simply not right to delete an article which has been created by someone who put alot of time into it's creation AND who donates to the upkeep of this website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lola1263818 (talk • contribs) 11:39, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
• Speedy delete- Rupert Pupkin has found Wikipedia. As stated by others, this clearly fails notability and reliable sources. Of the sources there are, some are downright suspicious, if not absurd. Die Welt and something called the "National Press, Canada" apparently have been reporting the effect Mr Fletcher's work has had on their respective populations. Germans are not happy with Mr Fletcher's magnum opus, his unmade sitcom script that at most was self-published and which I'm certain has not troubled production schedules within the German publishing industry. Nor is the cause behind any recent perturbations amongst the citizenry. And I can find no organisation or facility called the "Bellwood Institute of Health" so who's got their knickers in a twist there we'll never know for as long as the "National Press, Canada" remains impenetrable and unknowable. But those who are inspired by Mr Fletcher's success and inventiveness will surely find his altruistic entrepreneurial "publishing and record" companies with their "international reach" a great help in imagining themselves on US radio whilst talking to themselves on YouTube. Mr Fletcher's stay on Wikipedia will not last but maybe he "figured it this way: better to be king for a night...."[http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/The_King_of_Comedy_(1983_film)]. Meanwhile an admin better lock the Jerry Lewis article... Plutonium27 (talk) 02:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:BIO and sources are not Reliable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

: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.