297:. Also just save it Alejanrad117, I know what's next; "Not famous Eric West? (random links of random pictures and random YouTube video of West in background of some event)" After about four AfD's of the same refutation pattern under numerous socks it's tiresome to see that response; let's actually try to make a point about why you feel the article should be kept.
235:
a rising star (for how long), a style icon. Nothing notable. This is not a speedy delete as a repost as it uses some new references but they are once again not good references. Zimbio, not a reliable source, no depth of coverage. Vibe Vixen, not a reliable source, no depth of coverage. Q by
Equinox, no depth of coverage. Twitter, enough said.
565:, who has a sourceable career, was the actual target of the video. Same with FilmMagic, another paid photo service. And anyone these days can put their songs up on Rhapsody or Spotify and create a playlist showing an artist's song on top of the charts. Guess what? We don't source charts to Rhapsody, only
839:
I clicked on a couple of the text links touted above and saw nothing above the extremely humdrum. I watched a youtube in which somebody takes a lot of photos (which doesn't even consume 35mm film; electrons are cheap) of some bloke while not many other people look interested. This person seems to be
234:
This joke again? How is West meant to be notable? Despite claims he didn't feature in 30 Rock, he didn't star in World War Z. He didn't release an album. He wasn't dating
Christina Milian. He turns up at fashion shows. Being called one to watch (how long do we have to watch defore he does anything),
729:
I don't care what your opinion is. I don't have to change it. YouTube being a source or not... it doesn't change the fact that you're spending so much of your time trying to claim Eric West as NON-notable. It actually laughable when you look at ALL of the coverage surrounding one man who can't even
678:
For the last time the subject's
Instagram is non-sourcable. Those YouTube videos prove nothing (and the Wendy clip was already ruled an ineligible source in the fourth nom). Stop posting red carpet events, they are non-sourcable. I'm done engaging any longer with you and my rationale stands as-is.
609:
All you've said it "WHAT YOU BELIEVE" to get around the facts.... What you believe, does not change the fact of a cover story does it? What it looks like is a 'paid to wear our clothes' again does not change the fact it is a cover story. There is no rule that says what it or isn't notable because
556:
which when translated doesn't even mention the subject pictured within the article's text, just some flowery text about buying whatever clothes he wore cheap. All of your sources are ineligible as either paid mentions or coming right off the subject's
Facebook. One more time; Twitter, Instagram,
388:
but doesn't expand any knowledge about the subject. The GQ link is just 'he dressed like a nerd'. It certainly doesn't take
Maureen Dowd to make that observation at all. Again, please make an actual argument to why this article should be kept.
293:. And seriously, a YouTube link to him walking by a paparazzi camera? Why do I get the feeling a bit of renumeration was involved there to puff up sources, along with the Equinox piece which definitely seems like a non-editorial paid job? Stop
506:
The most ironic and idiotic thing about a deletion is that Eric West will be notable with or without a
Knowledge (XXG) page. When the people above are saying it should be deleted, I find that odd. If someone is reading about Eric in
531:
You're somehow telling me the MILLIONS of people that are reading about him in GQ, Vanity Fair, Cosmopolitan magazine, US Weekly, Vibe magazine, In Style, Now
Magazine just to name a few.. means he is NON-notable. What a big joke!
432:
The point you fail to get is somehow someone that is talked about aby the world's most important men's magazine and followed by the paparazzi even on a subway train. You find non-notable. Sorry. That's a joke.
807:
203:
777:
101:
96:
91:
86:
730:
walk down the street without being photographed by paparazzi ... I can't help but laugh... GQ, Vanity Fair, US Weekly, Wendy
Williams, MTV, Cosmopolitan. You must have nothing better to.
237:
What's new since the last deletion? He didn't star in a movie and he got a few passing mentions in some non reliable sources. Nothing that makes him notable. Delete this yet again.
156:
792:
277:
Enough. No matter how much they do to pad their IMDb with 'member of the studio audience="appearance"' ridiculousness or use never-clicked MTV web series (in this case
569:
such as
Billboard. Stop persisting. I'm not arguing further with this, source with good editorial content, not whatever scraps you pull up from Google Image Search.
520:
197:
163:
552:
Bleu looks like one of those 'paid to wear our clothes for a story' titles that I never seem to find on a newsstand, and you cited a random piece in InStyle
81:
436:
434:
334:
664:
I can go on.... for someone NON-Notable.. he seems to get a lot of attention. I can find 50 models with wiki pages who are not as notable as Eric.
511:
365:
526:
484:
628:
Your argument is ridiculous. You're telling me, that someone in NUMEROUS national magazines around the globe isn't notable.... A JOKE!
17:
523:
659:
610:
it's what you believe about a "cover story". Jeannie Oretga hasn't had a hit in YEARS. She doesn't even have 2,000 followers.
857:
834:
814:
799:
784:
768:
739:
703:
673:
637:
593:
557:
Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn, Qik and whatever other social media accounts are in the control of the subject themselves are
541:
488:
447:
413:
377:
321:
268:
246:
64:
129:
124:
218:
133:
876:
281:) to try to get notability, it isn't happening. He's an extra. Like in the last nomination just saying you might be on
40:
185:
613:. And if anyone could create a playlist, wouldn't EVERYONE be on the rhapsody charts? It took one Twitter search..
116:
848:. (If he becomes article-worthy, then a new article on him can still be created, via the regular procedure.) --
259:
who was also a lead wasn't even in WWZ. I could spend more time to edit this wiki, but to delete it is a joke.
251:
Are you joking? I think you need to pick up an issue of
Cosmopolitan magazine! How is this person not notable?
561:. Corbis is ineligible; it's video posted to a site you have to pay money to see, and I get the feeling that
517:
735:
669:
633:
537:
480:
443:
373:
264:
242:
472:
179:
366:
http://www.gq.com/style/blogs/the-gq-eye/2013/11/the-most-shocking-celebrity-costumes-from-last-night.html
338:
It's ironic that someone who is photographed by paparazzi walking down the street would be a non-notable.
872:
811:
796:
781:
36:
438:
sounds like you have a personal reason. Eric is far more notable that a lot of people with wiki pages.
175:
385:
120:
694:
584:
404:
312:
211:
830:
731:
665:
629:
533:
476:
439:
369:
331:
260:
238:
225:
384:
And my point is made. Don't bother with the subject's Instagram, it's not only ineligible as a
112:
70:
764:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
871:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
759:- And salt. Procedural. This subject has been deleted three times already. Enough is enough.
614:
294:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
853:
682:
572:
562:
392:
300:
191:
55:
826:
467:
760:
150:
256:
466:
So non-notable that his song is #3 on rhapsody.. Again. A deletion is a joke..
849:
656:
653:
339:
252:
652:
You claim... Non-notable, but Wendy Williams mentioned him in Hot Topics...
368:
and somehow your opinion on him makes him non-notable lol..... Confusing!
514:
662:
611:
840:
mentioned in various places. So are hundreds of thousands of people.
350:
865:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
808:
list of United States of America-related deletion discussions
559:
ineligible as primary sources that are not allowed to be used
525:
or even with he makes the worst dressed list by Now magazine
508:
361:
778:
list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions
522:, Vibe magazine (where he was named NEXT star of 2013)
146:
142:
138:
210:
825:- And salt. I concur with the nominator and Carrite.
224:
844:. AfDs on him have already wasted enough time, so
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
879:). No further edits should be made to this page.
102:Articles for deletion/Eric West (5th nomination)
97:Articles for deletion/Eric West (4th nomination)
92:Articles for deletion/Eric West (3rd nomination)
87:Articles for deletion/Eric West (2nd nomination)
8:
806:Note: This debate has been included in the
793:list of Fashion-related deletion discussions
791:Note: This debate has been included in the
776:Note: This debate has been included in the
805:
790:
775:
253:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18kEKh7GiPU
349:I could reference his Instagram alone.
79:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
330:The YouTube video is actually from
77:
24:
82:Articles for deletion/Eric West
1:
858:10:23, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
835:22:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
815:21:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
800:21:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
785:21:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
769:21:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
740:02:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
704:02:10, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
674:02:03, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
638:01:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
594:01:40, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
542:21:31, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
489:18:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
448:18:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
414:18:18, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
378:18:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
322:17:26, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
269:16:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
247:05:03, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
65:12:34, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
275:Delete and permanently salt
896:
868:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
76:AfDs for this article:
567:true industry media
364:. Talks about him.
48:The result was
817:
802:
787:
701:
591:
492:
475:comment added by
411:
319:
295:gaming the system
285:doesn't mean you
63:
887:
870:
812:Northamerica1000
797:Northamerica1000
782:Northamerica1000
702:
697:
691:
690:
685:
592:
587:
581:
580:
575:
519:, Bleu magazine
491:
469:
412:
407:
401:
400:
395:
320:
315:
309:
308:
303:
229:
228:
214:
166:
154:
136:
62:
60:
53:
34:
895:
894:
890:
889:
888:
886:
885:
884:
883:
877:deletion review
866:
695:
688:
683:
680:
661:and newspapers
585:
578:
573:
570:
470:
405:
398:
393:
390:
313:
306:
301:
298:
171:
162:
127:
111:
108:
106:
74:
56:
54:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
893:
891:
882:
881:
861:
860:
837:
819:
818:
803:
788:
772:
771:
753:
752:
751:
750:
749:
748:
747:
746:
745:
744:
743:
742:
713:
712:
711:
710:
709:
708:
707:
706:
645:
644:
643:
642:
641:
640:
621:
620:
619:
618:
617:
616:
599:
598:
597:
596:
563:Jeannie Ortega
529:
528:
500:
499:
498:
497:
496:
495:
494:
493:
457:
456:
455:
454:
453:
452:
451:
450:
423:
422:
421:
420:
419:
418:
417:
416:
386:primary source
356:
355:
354:
353:
344:
343:
342:
341:
336:
325:
324:
236:
232:
231:
168:
107:
105:
104:
99:
94:
89:
84:
78:
75:
73:
68:
52:. And salted.
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
892:
880:
878:
874:
869:
863:
862:
859:
855:
851:
847:
843:
838:
836:
832:
828:
824:
821:
820:
816:
813:
809:
804:
801:
798:
794:
789:
786:
783:
779:
774:
773:
770:
766:
762:
758:
755:
754:
741:
737:
733:
732:Alejandrad117
728:
725:
724:
723:
722:
721:
720:
719:
718:
717:
716:
715:
714:
705:
700:
698:
687:
686:
677:
676:
675:
671:
667:
666:Alejandrad117
663:
660:
657:
654:
651:
650:
649:
648:
647:
646:
639:
635:
631:
630:Alejandrad117
627:
626:
625:
624:
623:
622:
615:
612:
608:
605:
604:
603:
602:
601:
600:
595:
590:
588:
577:
576:
568:
564:
560:
555:
551:
548:
547:
546:
545:
544:
543:
539:
535:
534:Alejandrad117
527:
524:
521:
518:
516:
512:
510:
505:
502:
501:
490:
486:
482:
478:
477:Alejandrad117
474:
468:
465:
464:
463:
462:
461:
460:
459:
458:
449:
445:
441:
440:Alejandrad117
437:
435:
431:
430:
429:
428:
427:
426:
425:
424:
415:
410:
408:
397:
396:
387:
383:
382:
381:
380:
379:
375:
371:
370:Alejandrad117
367:
363:
360:
359:
358:
357:
351:
348:
347:
346:
345:
340:
337:
335:
333:
329:
328:
327:
326:
323:
318:
316:
305:
304:
296:
292:
288:
284:
280:
276:
273:
272:
271:
270:
266:
262:
261:Alejandrad117
258:
254:
249:
248:
244:
240:
239:duffbeerforme
227:
223:
220:
217:
213:
209:
205:
202:
199:
196:
193:
190:
187:
184:
181:
177:
174:
173:Find sources:
169:
165:
161:
158:
152:
148:
144:
140:
135:
131:
126:
122:
118:
114:
110:
109:
103:
100:
98:
95:
93:
90:
88:
85:
83:
80:
72:
69:
67:
66:
61:
59:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
867:
864:
845:
841:
822:
756:
726:
692:
681:
606:
582:
571:
566:
558:
553:
549:
530:
503:
471:— Preceding
402:
391:
310:
299:
290:
286:
282:
278:
274:
250:
233:
221:
215:
207:
200:
194:
188:
182:
172:
159:
57:
49:
47:
31:
28:
332:GettyImages
257:Matthew Fox
198:free images
658:and yahoo
655:and Bravo
58:Sandstein
873:talk page
113:Eric West
71:Eric West
37:talk page
875:or in a
827:Finnegas
485:contribs
473:unsigned
279:Hey Girl
157:View log
39:or in a
761:Carrite
727:Comment
696:chatter
607:Comment
586:chatter
554:Germany
550:Comment
515:InStyle
406:chatter
314:chatter
204:WP refs
192:scholar
130:protect
125:history
842:Delete
823:Delete
757:Delete
289:be on
176:Google
134:delete
50:delete
850:Hoary
291:Smash
283:Smash
219:JSTOR
180:books
164:Stats
151:views
143:watch
139:links
16:<
854:talk
846:salt
831:talk
765:talk
736:talk
684:Nate
670:talk
634:talk
574:Nate
538:talk
504:Keep
481:talk
444:talk
394:Nate
374:talk
302:Nate
287:will
265:talk
243:talk
212:FENS
186:news
147:logs
121:talk
117:edit
226:TWL
155:– (
856:)
833:)
810:.
795:.
780:.
767:)
738:)
672:)
636:)
540:)
513:,
509:GQ
487:)
483:•
446:)
376:)
362:GQ
267:)
255:]
245:)
206:)
149:|
145:|
141:|
137:|
132:|
128:|
123:|
119:|
852:(
829:(
763:(
734:(
699:)
693:(
689:•
668:(
632:(
589:)
583:(
579:•
536:(
479:(
442:(
409:)
403:(
399:•
372:(
352:.
317:)
311:(
307:•
263:(
241:(
230:)
222:·
216:·
208:·
201:·
195:·
189:·
183:·
178:(
170:(
167:)
160:·
153:)
115:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.