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 keep. Discussion shows by consensus that WP:GNG and WP:ENT are met. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:26, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Winston Sterzel[edit]

Winston Sterzel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article does not appear to pass general notability guidelines and seems to be largely self-promotional. Shritwod (talk) 02:53, 25 June 2018 (UTC) NOTE There has been off-Wiki canvassing by the subject on Twitter: If anyone of you has knowledge of how Wikipedia works, could you please help me as my wikipedia page has been under serious vandalism and revision and nominated for Deletion again by the trolls, it's very frustrating as they have... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Sterzel Shritwod (talk) 21:40, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB is utterly irrelevant and not a reliable source. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 2:08 pm, Today (UTC−4)
The Matthew Tye article is a massive abuse of process, it has been deleted twice and recreated. The two subjects are linked as per the quote "Matthew is best known for his work alongside his filming partner Winston Sterzel, also known as SerpentZA." In my opinion neither subject is notable, and the Tye article requires salting. But if you have evidence for your "fishy" comment then I suggest you report me to the admins. Shritwod (talk) 21:26, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Isofarro, please don't make any more personal attacks. As a side note, having a profile on IMDB is, indeed, completely meaningless, and I am puzzled that a citizen of the 21st century thinks that something being for sale on Amazon is somehow a mark of fame or notability. Drmies (talk) 14:44, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sources presented above are not sufficient to establish encyclopedic relevance of this subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:07, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unprotected as requested. ----Anthony Bradbury"talk" 18:47, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I can only make a start right now; I hope someone else will jump in. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:04, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your significant improvements to the article, Yngvadottir (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 00:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You need a source for that claim. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:29, 2 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:32, 2 July 2018 (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.