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.
WP:VANISPAMCRUFTISEMENT, This is a
well disguised advert. Many of the references are regurgitated press releases, Playbills and PR material. This is
WP:BOMBARD If it can be rescued, so be it, but adverts have no place on Wikipedia.
If being a TV talent show finalist confers notability then perhaps he has a little, but this article does not reflect that.
Comment this was new reviewer
Doric Loon's accept so he might want to comment here. I am frustrated as I spent 90 minutes cleaning this up, only for the article's creator
Classiclady76 to revert those changes, twice. I presume she is Moses' agent or has some other close connection and therefore should see
WP:OWN,
WP:COI and
WP:PAID. If you look at
Commons you'll see that her 369 edits there are all addition of images of Moses. Given her reverts, the article as it stands is therefore not in its best form and I haven't the motivation to unpick the mix of retrograde editing and addition of potentially useful references that Classiclady has added. The refbombing will make it difficult for an impartial reviewer to review the references for notability. If anyone wants to do that, probably best take a look at the last good version.
Curb Safe Charmer (
talk)
08:11, 29 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete: ClassicLady is an SPA account so
WP:COI and
WP:PAID more than likely apply. Checking of references shows primary sources, press releases and mentions. For this rising pantomime star, its
WP:TOOSOON. Let him build his filmography and awards. --
Whiteguru (
talk)
08:36, 29 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment (from accepting reviewer) I am indeed a relatively new AfC reviewer (but not new to Wikipedia). I accepted this on the basis of citations to newspapers, which when I followed the links did indeed deal primarily with the subject and have photos of him. But I was hesitant, because they were very small local newspapers (York Post etc.). I agree that the article gives more hype than his achievements merit, but I still think he is sufficiently in the public eye to be covered. On the other hand, if the suspicion of paid copywriting turns out to be true, I would see that differently. Certainly uncited claims like "...has also become a highly demanded brand spokesman..." are problematic. So if you think I made a wrong call, that's OK. --
Doric Loon (
talk)
10:38, 29 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment Per a message on her talk page, ClassicLady claims to have no COI. She says she met him once. I will assume good faith. She said she was happy to see the article restored to how it was before her recent problematic edits so I have reverted to the last good version and re-applied the AfD etc. tags.
Curb Safe Charmer (
talk)
12:53, 29 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment as Nominator: I will not be going through the welter of references again. For good or ill it is up for deletion discussion. I understand the joint frustrations of
Curb Safe Charmer and
Doric Loon. I think we now need to leave it in the hands of the community who will come to a conclusion, I hope.
FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me21:07, 29 July 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.
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.
WP:VANISPAMCRUFTISEMENT, This is a
well disguised advert. Many of the references are regurgitated press releases, Playbills and PR material. This is
WP:BOMBARD If it can be rescued, so be it, but adverts have no place on Wikipedia.
If being a TV talent show finalist confers notability then perhaps he has a little, but this article does not reflect that.
Comment this was new reviewer
Doric Loon's accept so he might want to comment here. I am frustrated as I spent 90 minutes cleaning this up, only for the article's creator
Classiclady76 to revert those changes, twice. I presume she is Moses' agent or has some other close connection and therefore should see
WP:OWN,
WP:COI and
WP:PAID. If you look at
Commons you'll see that her 369 edits there are all addition of images of Moses. Given her reverts, the article as it stands is therefore not in its best form and I haven't the motivation to unpick the mix of retrograde editing and addition of potentially useful references that Classiclady has added. The refbombing will make it difficult for an impartial reviewer to review the references for notability. If anyone wants to do that, probably best take a look at the last good version.
Curb Safe Charmer (
talk)
08:11, 29 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete: ClassicLady is an SPA account so
WP:COI and
WP:PAID more than likely apply. Checking of references shows primary sources, press releases and mentions. For this rising pantomime star, its
WP:TOOSOON. Let him build his filmography and awards. --
Whiteguru (
talk)
08:36, 29 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment (from accepting reviewer) I am indeed a relatively new AfC reviewer (but not new to Wikipedia). I accepted this on the basis of citations to newspapers, which when I followed the links did indeed deal primarily with the subject and have photos of him. But I was hesitant, because they were very small local newspapers (York Post etc.). I agree that the article gives more hype than his achievements merit, but I still think he is sufficiently in the public eye to be covered. On the other hand, if the suspicion of paid copywriting turns out to be true, I would see that differently. Certainly uncited claims like "...has also become a highly demanded brand spokesman..." are problematic. So if you think I made a wrong call, that's OK. --
Doric Loon (
talk)
10:38, 29 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment Per a message on her talk page, ClassicLady claims to have no COI. She says she met him once. I will assume good faith. She said she was happy to see the article restored to how it was before her recent problematic edits so I have reverted to the last good version and re-applied the AfD etc. tags.
Curb Safe Charmer (
talk)
12:53, 29 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment as Nominator: I will not be going through the welter of references again. For good or ill it is up for deletion discussion. I understand the joint frustrations of
Curb Safe Charmer and
Doric Loon. I think we now need to leave it in the hands of the community who will come to a conclusion, I hope.
FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me21:07, 29 July 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.