Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyler Hammer

:{{la|Tyler Hammer}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tyler_Hammer Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Tyler Hammer}})

CSD was declined by {{u|Adam9007}} on the grounds that "significance is asserted". However, a search online suggests that the subject of the article has never been involved in Code Lyoko at all, and at best was simply involved in some kind of fan-made sequel. This is basically a borderline hoax. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:04, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:04, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:04, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:04, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

• Comment It appears that {{u|MelbourneStar}} tagged this article for BLPPROD. Pinging them for their comments. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:11, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
• Delete – Very fishy: a television director at the age of 17? no reliable sources within article to demonstrate significance, notability or even the connection to the series (basis of their supposed significance). A simple search on Google (esp. News) provides no hits. {{ping|Adam9007}} ought to clarify why such article is not a WP:HOAX, and shouldn't be speedy-deleted as such. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 04:12, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
• G3 only applies to obvious hoaxes. Adam9007 (talk) 04:13, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
• A 17 year old television director, in the business since 14 years of age + no reliable sources presented at all -- seems quite obvious to me. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 04:14, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
• Snow delete - This is an obvious hoax. No reliable sources, searching for sources online doesn't turn up much either. -- Dane2007 ^talk 04:17, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
• Comment What about [https://codelyokorebirthofficial.wordpress.com/about/ this]? Adam9007 (talk) 04:21, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
• Read WP:RS. That personal website could mean anything, it certainly ought not to be used as an indicator of notability, let alone veracity. Might I add Code Lyoko: Rebirth doesn't exist either. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 04:24, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
• Why is everyone assuming bad faith here? A quick Google search reveals that Code Lyoko: Rebirth does exist. It might not be on Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Adam9007 (talk) 04:31, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
• User who created this article was [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/OldBurns blocked for abusing multiple accounts] and is accused of creating similar material; they've created an article with no sources whatsoever (not even unreliable sources). In further digging, no reliable sources even exist online -- you have yet to provide any. There's a pretty big difference between existing in reliable sources -- news outlets, books, published works --- and existing in someone's imagination, their own creative works, or even a YouTube channel for example. This seems fan made, and not actual notable work. Happy to be proven otherwise, but you are still yet to. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 04:39, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
• My searches lead me to believe he is simply not notable. There's a big difference between being non-notable and a hoax. But either way, this discussion is rather pointless. This should have been a PROD. Snow delete. Adam9007 (talk) 04:42, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
• Delete As the creator, director, and producer of the 2017 (maybe unauthorized) sequel Code Lyoko: Rebirth, Tyler Hammer is not notable. —teb728 t c 04:47, 5 November 2016 (UTC) For whatever it may be worth see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Code Lyoko: Rebirth about the fan-made sequel. —teb728 t c 05:04, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as this is A7, there's no inherited notability or substance from that one film and there's literally no other information apart it, the only website listed is clearly not convincing nor acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 22:47, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.