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 redirect to The Institute (company). There seems to be general agreement that the article as it exists is not compliant with policy; with ultimately those having expressed an opinion on this favouring redirection; and that appears preferable to closing as no consensus due to continued lack of participation (there's nothing that prevents the redirect being fleshed out at some point in the future if the article subject's status changes significantly enough). (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:52, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Gardenhour[edit]

Scott Gardenhour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

I fail to see how gardenhour is notable on his own, The Institute won the emmy, not him and all the coverage relating to him is primarily about The Institute and thus should be redirected and merged there but the subject insists on edit warring to restore his unsourced spammy bio. CUPIDICAE💕 22:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:27, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As it exists, the article has no references about Scott Gardenhour. And Gardenhour, claiming to be (User:TruthPR) is blocked, so he cannot request on the Talk page the addition of references. It feels very Catch-22ish. Would one path be to draftify the article? Of is it clear that an attempt to find citations about Gardenhour is doomed to failure? The article has been around a long time, but looking back, always weak on references and long on ~promotional wording. David notMD (talk) 23:03, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't on the subject to verify the content, any editor can. It's not a catch 22 and it's ineligible for draftification. This isn't punishment, it's policy. When you find a badly or unsourced BLP, you look for sources and if none exist, you AFD it. CUPIDICAE💕 10:30, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've agreed to unblock Scott, subject to them confirming their ID, doing their disclosure to comply with the Terms of Use, and to changing their username to something less problematic. I'm therefore happy for them to use their user talk page to pass relevant source information to David notMD who can then bring it to the attention of users here, on the article talk page etc. Nick (talk) 10:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - unsure. Have we ever kept a producer because his commercial won an Emmy? Bearian (talk) 18:27, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno but that seems like an OSE type argument for keeping but we could also redirect to The Institute. CUPIDICAE💕 18:29, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to The Institute (company), not seeing significant independent coverage of him, reasonable target. Reliably sourced information can be added there-- Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:09, 12 March 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.