Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rick Cordeiro

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. Daniel (talk) 00:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Cordeiro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This article was created by User:Nhl4hamilton, who has many worthwhile contributions to Wikipedia (and indirectly to Commons, to which many of his photos have been transferred). However, this article is self-promotional, as the user is the subject of the article (see, for example, the author noted for CentreMallHamiltonCanada.JPG at Commons; there are numerous such examples). The references seem quite weak for a biographical article, and the article appears to fail WP:BIO. Mindmatrix 21:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:42, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:42, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It is high time we delete all autobiographies immediately. We need to stop this abuse of process and policy.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to his personal talk page, not notable for the mainspace in wiki. Oaktree b (talk) 02:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think most of the content would fail WP:UPNOT. Mindmatrix 17:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is quite heavily advertorialized, claims nothing about his career that would make him "inherently" notable in the absence of a properly demonstrated WP:GNG pass, and is referenced almost entirely to primary sources (e.g. the self-published EPKs of his own films) that aren't support for notability. If somebody could write it neutrally and reference it properly, things would be different — but neutral and properly referenced, this isn't. Bearcat (talk) 12:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete and it's with a heavy heart because I'm not sure that would be my verdict if I could read the Kazakh-language links. But they would have to be at least marginally more substantive than their English-language counterparts. The self-creation is what tips it over the edge for me, unfortunately. Close call though. Abeg92contribs 00:06, 25 January 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.