Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Zomick

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. postdlf (talk) 01:02, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Zomick

[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)

Repeatedly recreated and previously salted, it's time for a community discussion on whether this topic is suitable for inclusion. It was moved from draft space with the comment "Article has a significant and credible amount of sources", but not a single source in the article is considered reliable. A Google search turns up nothing more to add to this, and the subject appears to fail both WP:BASIC and WP:NACTOR. Brad v🍁 19:19, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:52, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:52, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:54, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following was posted by the author to the AFD talk page, but actually belongs here:

The actor is listed as a celebrity on IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes and other numerous publications.

Here are additional sources found on Zomick:

Comment - More unreliable sources. Citing an image at Wikipedia Commons suggests competency concerns about the author. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:43, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The behavior pattern is consistent with undisclosed paid editing. The only real issue here is whether to Delete and Salt or to Soft Delete without prejudice to re-creation by a neutral editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:43, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete nothing of substance - just appears to a lot of promotional stuff. No indication of any notable works. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 22:06, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My searches produce a WP:SIGCOV fail.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:44, 31 December 2018 (UTC) and WP:SALT.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:52, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to show they meet WP:GNG, and clearly doesn't come close to meeting WP:NACTOR. In light of the behavior of the article's editor, I would recommend a SALT decision as well.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The sources were all unreliable for BLP info. Yes, this looks like COI editing. --Ronz (talk) 18:11, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt] with Extended-Confirmed Protection to allow creation by a neutral editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neither sources nor roles add up to notability. The above mention of "the actor is listed as a celebrity on IMDb" is a sign whoever made it does not understand Wikipedia guidelines. IMDb is not a reliable source. Wikipedia does not consider everyone who has ever appeared in a film notable, although I have to admit I think we need to delete many of the actor articles we do have, but that is another story.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:14, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Definitely fails the WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 19:28, 6 January 2019 (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.