Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Vickers

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. Drmies (talk) 03:31, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Vickers

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

Completely unsourced biography of a pornographic film actor, which makes no particular claim of notability for anything that would pass WP:PORNBIO. The strongest claim of notability here, in actual fact, is his winning of an unnamed and likely non-notable regional bodybuilding competition in 1982 — but as weak as that claim is, an earlier speedy nomination was actually declined on that basis. But it's still not nearly strong enough to make an article permanently keepable if it's the best you can do for notability, and if the reliable source coverage is sitting at zero. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 16:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I tagged this for an A7 speedy. No credible claim for passing PORNBIO. This "cult figure" lacks substantial coverage by any reliable sources. All I could find is a passing mention in a book and an apparent advertisement in The Advocate. Winning a local/regional bodybuilding contest brings up nothing in searches. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment I declined the A7 speedy and I would again. A "tri-state" contest would be at least regional. Lots of statements that do not establish notability or even come close still are credible claims of significance. Someone who was active largely in a somewhat niche area in the 1980s may well have sources, but not online. On the other hand, as per WP:BURDEN, it is the responsibility of the person creating the article, or of anyone who wants it kept, to provide those sources, or at least an indication of where they might be found. DES ^(talk) 20:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
further comment Bearcat, I notice that you did not notify the article creator, User:EliteShadowHunter, of this discussion. Please include such notification as part of an AfD nomination in future. I believe that Twinkle normally does this, but if you use another tool that does not notify, or if you nominate manually, please notify manually. Also, did, you do an independent search for sources, as specified by WP:BEFORE? DES ^(talk) 21:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat's accurate analysis. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:21, 13 October 2015 (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.