Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kia Jam

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. Tone 07:49, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kia Jam

[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)

The article was subjected to an edit war recently, with an IP editor determined to remove a short section (added by Greyjoy in May 2019) about the subject having paid £500,000 to settle a civil fraud case. I removed the section, pending a discussion on whether or not it was sufficiently reliably sourced and WP:DUE, but noticed that without the sources supporting the payment, the article was sourced entirely to IMDB (WP:UGC, unreliable). I searched for additional sourced, but the only stuff I could find that was reliable, independent and gave the subject significant coverage was about the fraud stuff. I believe that, per WP:BLP1E, the fraud case on its own doesn't make him notable, but without those refs he fails WP:GNG, and so the article should go. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:07, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:07, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:07, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:07, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:BLP1E is not a stand-alone WP:DELREASON, but typically a reason to rename/redirect/merge articles about the person into the article covering the event they are notable for. It should only result in straight deletion where the event you would otherwise rename/redirect to is itself not notable. In this case, the event (the fraud case) appears to be potentially not notable due to lack of evidence of WP:LASTING impact (it was covered in May 2019 but not since) meaning this fails WP:NEVENT, and is possibly also a WP:NOTNEWS fail. As such there is no event to merge to. If this guy goes any further in the film-production business we may end up recreating this article, but for the moment we've got simple bare-mentions of him producing a single film in a couple of trade magazine articles. FOARP (talk) 08:52, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FOARP, thanks for this detailed analysis. My thoughts run along the same lines as yours - I wasn't meaning to present BLP1E as a reason to delete exactly, rather it's a reason why this coverage on its own enough to justify retaining the article - and, without any other significant coverage, deleting seems the best option. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:21, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:22, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:22, 14 November 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.