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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 15:20, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Lyon

[edit]

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

Not questioning the notability of this individual, but article is almost 100% unsourced and WP:OR. Prime candidate for WP:BLOWITUP. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator here seems to have got things the wrong way round. The subject's notability is certainly questionable, but there is no need for an article to be deleted before it can be blown up and started again - that can be achieved by normal editing. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:31, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:39, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:39, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:39, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wow. An SPA has been working on this article for almost 3 years. I think a COI is implied, but the article doesn't actually seem AfD-worthy. Thanks for trimming the bare links just a moment ago, Zack. Is there a guide to notability for fashion models? This guy isn't exactly prolific, but he's had some high-profile jobs. Jergling (talk) 21:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The issue, as far as notability is concerned, is not whether this guy has had some high-profile jobs, but whether he has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. I have been unable to find such coverage either in the sources cited in the article or elsewhere. Have you found any? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. My impression is that all the sources here are employers or former employers. Chances are that he's not independently notable. Jergling (talk) 14:11, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the author editor of this article has a self declared COI here. I reserve my position on deletion until I can thoroughly review the article, but at present it isn't looking positive. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 17:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - having had a chance to wade through the refs he looks like a narcissist turned good guy but the whole article is fawning and promotional. The references certainly don't make the grade and I can see very little that is notable in a reliable source, COI or no COI. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:30, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based solely on lacking notability as a photographer. I don't usually comment on actor or activist AfDs but based on what I've read, he may not be notable in any case. The sources are certainly not impressive. The article states he was in a "feature role" in a Robert De Niro film. I'm not sure what a featured role is supposed to mean, but it appears to be a small part. Some 80s coverage as a teen idol of sorts (Tiger Beat!) but again, I'm not convinced any of this passes WP:GNG. I am totally willing to change my !vote to keep if others provide compelling evidence or arguments. freshacconci talk to me 19:26, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - halfway to notability in a couple of different spheres doesn't add up to notability. Cabayi (talk) 08:27, 2 October 2016 (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.