Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Actors and filmmakers: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 11:40, 23 June 2010

All deletion discussions relating to filmmakers, directors and other non-actor film-related people should now be listed on this page.

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Actors and filmmakers. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Actors and filmmakers|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Actors and filmmakers. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

Purge page cache

watch

{{{linktext}}}

Actors and filmmakers

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. –MuZemike 00:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mio Yasuda

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

This page does not assert notability either by the GNGs or WP:ENTERTAINER, as most of Yasuda's roles seem to be minor roles. Malkinann (talk) 11:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Comment Voice roles are usually best treated as any other actor roles. Using that as a yardstick, one can see by the article that most of her roles are as character descriptives, rather than as characters with names. With the lack of available sources, I cannot determine if the few named voice roles are significant or not. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First issue with this article, the reference asserting that Mio Yasuda = Izumi Yazawa returns a "404 error" thus we can not use the games voice acting roles for this AfD unless another RS could be found to assert that key fact. Second out of the anime voice acting roles, i managed only to find a RS for one role as Yui Tabata in H2O: Footprints in the Sand. Adding all those facts lead me to a Delete position. --KrebMarkt 07:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient sourcing to verify notability. --DAJF (talk) 11:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't found any additional roles that aren't also minor/bit parts. No major roles in notable works = not passing WP:ENTERTAINER, and there doesn't seem to be anything to support passing WP:GNG either. All that adds up to delete. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minor roles and non notability issues Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable roles in H2O: Footprints in the Sand as Yui Tabata, and also seen in the sequel Root After and Another. Dream Focus 20:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Her work in Tales of Rebirth was notable, she the voice actor of the heroine of the game, one of the main characters. Well that should be enough proof. If not, someone else can look through the rest to see what those roles involved. Dream Focus 20:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Okay, Tales of Rebirth I'll grant you -- I hadn't noticed that one. That makes one lead role in a notable production, which is a start. Yui, though, is a secondary character, not lead, and a single lead role is generally not enough to pass WP:ENTERTAINER unless reviews are available that specifically call out the actor's performance. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 13:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This has been tagged with notability issues and needing more references for 3 years now, while one has been brought into the light I doubt that is enough to keep this article as there are no third party references to be found. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:17, 3 July 2010 (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.

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. no arguments for deletion MINUS the nom JForget 00:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cindy Sampson

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

Its been 7 months since this was last discussed and there are still no reliable sources out there. Google is a bunch on unreliable sites, google news [1] has 3 hits none of which discuss her in any detail, and google books appears to be someone else. So we still have nothing verifiable about her. Her best part is a made for TV movie and I am not persuaded that we will ever be able to produce an article that is a proper BLP. Fails V, GNG, BIO and BLP Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Invalid GNews search, which covers only the last 30 days. Recurring roles in multiple TV series. No reason to delete in haste, even though nonprint sources may be difficult to turn up quickly. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you find any sources yet or are we still assessing notability by assertion here? Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in agreement with User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Actor's career seems to push nicely at WP:ENT. I further note that cleanup and improvement through regular editing are surmountable issues and no one having done so is a reason to do it... not delete it. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
its been over 6 months and still no sources and I see that neither of you are able to offer any either. This is a BLP and it needs to be sourced. Something will turn up is not an acceptable argument if there are no sources out there. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While acknowledging the importance of a proper BLP, I do not think my suggestion toward regular editing is any less useful than yours of "delete per WP:NOEFFORT". It is not entirely unverifiable... as her career meeting WP:ENT can at least be verified through the programs and films themselves... nor is it completely unsourced or unsourcable, else it would have been gone. User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz did make a valid point that your proffered G-news search only covered the past 30 days... but yes, the Find sources gives many false positives because of her common name. Barring other coverage, failing GNG does not invalidate meeting ENT... specially if meeting ENT can at least be verified. I suppose I can spend some time sifting theough the 80 news hits[2] and 45,00 G-hits[3] to see which is she. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While I understand Spartaz's frustration, past precedent here has been to keep TV personalities with a long record that can be verified, even if they are BLPs without proper sourcing, see e.g., Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pete_Williams_(journalist). Bearian (talk) 16:37, 28 June 2010 (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.

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. However, should discussion on whether the sources are reliable decide in the negative, no prejudice against a rapid renomination. Shimeru 07:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jana Jordan

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO (single year nom only); no indication the subject can satisfy the GNG or any other specialized guideline, one passing mention in GNews PR hit. Prod removed on pony theory Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Pony theory sees extensive coverage from the references in both industry trade journals, XBIZ and AVN, that are considered reliable sources for pornography. Therefore, the article passes the GNG. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Response. The pony theory, made popular by Ronald Reagan, refers to someone so determined to see the result they want that they fail to see basic facts. His paradigm was the child who, presented with a giant pile of horse manure, dived into it excitedly, proclaiming that with that much horse manure around, there had to be a pony in it somewhere.[4] Neither Xbiz nor AVN pages typically meet WP:RS requirements; the great majority of them are press releases (not always acknowledged as such) or promotional pieces assembled from PR presskits. Most of the remaining coverage that you cite simply includes the performer's name in passing in a castlist or laundry list. The GNG isn't satisfied by trivial coverage, nor nonindependent promo pieces. It requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," which does not include "works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc." You say there's a pony in there? Identify and cite the sources you say support notability. Otherwise you're just pointing to a pile of manure. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  While having the industry sources as User:Morbidthoughts mentioned would be nice for editors to review, is there now an expectation that porn stars can only be notable if covered in Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, or New York Times? If no to my rhetorical question, then just which industry sources can be considered reliable for sourcing this industry... if any? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - "No" is, of course, the answer to the straw-man rhetorical question. An essential point, often made on the reliable sources noticeboard, is that both the identity of the publishing source and the character of the published piece need to be taken into account. When my local newspaper publishes a piece on a local government meeting, based on its reporter's attending the meeting, it's much more likely to satisfy RS than when it publishes a report on the upcoming speaker at the Garden Club, based on the Garden Club's press release and the speaker's promotional biography. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    My question to you was made in a good faith inquiry for elucidation. I'll restate it in simple terms and without the rhetorical so that we do not go off on a non-porn tangent: As porn stars are rarely covered in any detail outside their industry, just which industry sources would you then be satisfied with as suitable for sourcing this industry? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the extent to which the standard adult industry trade publication sites repubublish/recycle/rewrite press releases and other promo material, there's no cut-and-dried answer to this question. As is so often pointed out on the reliable sources noticeboard, for most if not all publishers, their contents don't have a uniform reliability level. Even the New York Times once ran a gossip(ish) column called "Boldface Names," which was generally less likely to meet WP:RS than the paper's national news reporting. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Which would then bring this discussion back to consideration of the industry-specific the sources as offered in the article and as proffered by User:Morbidthoughts. I think then, that rather than throw the baby out with the bathwater, each need be examined individually, with an understanding that the nature of the magazines and the industry seems to mandate a style of article different from what one might find in more mainstreanm sources. To paraphrase the adage about bees and insects, while press releases in Xbiz or AVN are not articles, and similarity is tone and style aside, not all articles in Xbiz or AVN are press releases. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - XBIZ consistently denotes when it publishes a press release. Compare [5] to [6]. AVN is less obvious about separating their news stories from their press release but they do. Compare press releases to [7]. References 4-8 are all independent enough for me. It's also clear that XBIZ and AVN actually interviewed Jordan for their news stories. Compare these two intellectually different articles about the same topic. [8][9]. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - That very first link you provide, [10], is a perfect example of XBIZ dressing up promo material and presenting it as a faux "news story." Compare it to the parallel AVN piece, which was easy enough to find [11], where AVN does the same thing. These are presskit articles, with all content drawn from PR/promotional material. The main quotes are identical, the content is virtually identical, with XBIZ paraphrasing a quote that AVN recites in longer form; they even use the same publicity photo!. This is why the great majority of AVN/XBIZ content fails WP:RS; it's not genuinely independent of the subject, but is based on PR/publicity/promotional material prepared by subject's employer and reused uncritically. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per MichaelQSchmidt's observation. Article is reliably sourced. ----moreno oso (talk) 01:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above and Morbid. --80.192.21.253 (talk) 23:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom, no reliable sources to establish notability. Fails GNG. DiiCinta (talk) 19:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question While there's only one year of award noms in the article text, 2009, she's pictured holding an X-Rated Critics Organization trophy from 2007. Is that an award, or something less than that? It seems to be a trophy for trophy presenters? Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 03:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She was the "Trophy Girl" for the ceremony, not an award winner or even a presenter. It seems to be a very low rent parallel to "Miss Golden Globes," (and we'll skip the obvious jokes) which itself isn't treated as an award or conferring notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absent someone finding evidence for notability of the Heart-on Girl trophy, or of her having "starred in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature" it doesn't appear Jana Jordan meets the guidelines at this time. If she gets another nomination or something else notable develops, the article could be recreated. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 19:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Consensus has always been that AVN and XBiz are reliable sources. Due the massive effect it will have porn star articles, a wider discussion would be needed before it can be determined that the consensus has changed. Epbr123 (talk) 20:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think they can be reliable sources, though I think reproduction of press releases would be generally excluded as not being independent of the subject and not having editorial oversight. For some facts, reproduced press releases might be uncontroversial. But I think the issue is not so much about that as whether or not she can meet any of the WP:PORNBIO criteria or WP:GNG? Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 17:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True, but there's no conclusive evidence that the sources found are indeed mere reproductions of press releases with no editorial oversight. Epbr123 (talk) 20:11, 24 June 2010 (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.

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. Courcelles (talk) 03:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Armando Riesco

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

Non-notable working actor. Has had small roles in a number of major motion pictures, but notability is not inherited. No real sources to establish notability. I am skipping PROD as the article has been around for four years. Cerejota (talk) 20:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Actor has appeared in many films during the last 5 years, including Che Parts 1 & 2, the series 3lbs, and Garden State. Has received publicity for work in local New York press.--XLR8TION (talk) 20:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Cerejota (talk) 20:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. -- Cerejota (talk) 20:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Cerejota (talk) 20:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. -- Cerejota (talk) 20:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- My tendencies are that the article should be kept as a stub with the possibility of expansion. Yet, I realize that the article has been around for some time and that the actor has participated in lesser roles. It should be expanded to included the actors current status as to notability. Tony the Marine (talk) 01:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per pushing nicely at WP:ENT. The Find sources above shows numerous more-than-trivial coverage and review of this actor's work from 1999 through 2010,[12] so WP:GNG is met as well. In agreement with Tony the Marine, I believe that it serves the project to have this remain and be improved over time and through regular editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Actor has numerous roles and a long career. Keep. Scanlan (talk) 13:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Roles are notable enough. First Light (talk) 02:45, 26 June 2010 (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.

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. Fails WP:ENT and WP:GNG. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robbie Drebitt

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

Non notable actor. No evidence of the coverage by independent reliable sources required to meet WP:GNG Nuttah (talk) 15:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as TOO SOON (if ever). This actor's nearly non-existant career[13] fails WP:ENT and lack of coverage fails WP:GNG. Sorry Robbie. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ENT. Joe Chill (talk) 20:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete I changed "actor" on his page to webseries actor, comparing Robbie to a hollywood celebrity like ..John Travolta is comparing apples to oranges. Adding up the amount of views he's received in both the webseries S.E.X. (Star Explorer Xenolith) and Spellfury equals 884,042. That's quite impressive (and notable) for a new medium like the webseries. Even looking at MichealQShmidt's mention of WP:ENT, in there it says "Has a large fan base" which I believe Robbie does from the numbers.

Showzampa (talk) 20:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Claiming that he has a fanbase is not enough, you need to provide reliable sources to prove it. Likewise with establishing notability, here and on other article up for deletion, you have to show significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, e.g. a newspaper (preferably at least one national) articles about Robbie Drebitt, Spellfury and so on. Nuttah (talk) 20:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Old school Newspaper? (that are all going out of business by the way) They don't even know what a webseries is, they wouldn't even cover the most notable of weberies'. If you look through "the Guild's" early wiki history, they were declared notable with an IMDB link and a website. We are talking about a "webseries" actor and Spellfury is a "webseries", not a traditional tv show. Showzampa (talk) 13:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nuttah are you saying wired.com, Ain't It Cool News and tubefilter aren't reliable sources? I would say a webseries actor that has 884,042 (Spellfury views plus S.E.X. views) views of shows he's been in, one he was the lead actor in, the second a huge supporting character (lead villian) has a large fan base, their youtube channel has 15,000 friends and over 6,000 subscribers, are you not counting them? Important Youtube has given Spellfury it's own special showpage at[[14]], these can't be created by the public, "the guild" has also been given this honor, but notable webseries like "legend of neil" and "riese the series" don't have them. It allows The guild and Spellfury to come up in the listings of traditional television shows, Youtube has deemed Spellfury notable because of the strong viewership of the series and fanbase. Remember we're discussing whether or not Spellfury is a notable "webseries", not a tv show.

Comment Added an article that was in the EMC Perth Newspaper about Spellfury and Robbie Drebitt. For additional notablility as a webseries actor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.158.101 (talk) 00:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC) Showzampa (talk) 14:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To satisfy wiki editors that want old school newspaper references added better link to full page newspaper article about Spellfury and Rob to show notability. ^[1] Showzampa (talk) 16:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 03:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Came very, very close to deleting this, but in the interest of reaching the right result, the new sources ought to be evaluated by someone. Courcelles (talk) 03:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because the webseries Spellfury is notable and the newspaper article says "Gordon met some of the key people involved in the production of Spellfury today. Those key individuals include the star of the show, actress Julie O'Halloran, who plays the role of "half-elf" Druinia, and Robbie Drebitt, who plays evil sorcerer Kruskull." + the wired article Toronto23 (talk) 16:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)— Toronto23 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comments Kudos to User:Courcelles for relisting and allowing my bit of rsesearch into some of the sources offered by Showzampa.

Wired.com's (Wired News) is a branch of Wired (magazine)... owned by Condé Nast Publications, with international editons Wired UK and Wired Italia. It appears to have both the editorial oversight and the reputation for accuracy that should allow it to be seen as a reliable source for technology subjects.

Ain't It Cool News, appears to be respected within their industry as having reliable articles and reviews, interspersed within gossip and annonymous reports. If a specific review or article in question has a byline, it can be presumed that it went through editorial oversight. If such do not have a byline or editorial acknowledement, then one can presume that particular article as unreliable. Each proffered item must be looked at on a case-by-case basis.

Tubefilter is one of those cases of a reliable "blog"... in actuality a site with staff, editorial oversight, and a reputation for accuracy within their industry... not actually being a blog in its strictest sense, but using that self-proclaimed user-friendly label when publishing their researched and authored articles as a means to encourage comments from readers as a kind of instant feedback. The newcomer to this pack, they appear to be already well respected within their industry. So... an authored Tubefilter article or review can be considered generaly reliable, but the reader's comments in response are not.

This said, and while any article needs to be looked at for specific suitability, being from one of these sites is not the deathknell. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources as required by the general notability criteria. This is made obvious by the article itself which in the main is not even about the subject of the article but the series they are associated with. Notability is not inherited. Guest9999 (talk) 14:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. My research ito the sources being used might allow a few of them to be considered in some way... perhaps for articles on projects where this actor might then be mentioned as part of cast, but in agreement, there is no significant coverage of the subject himself, even though there may be some toward his projects. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:09, 27 June 2010 (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.

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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Barnes

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

A possible hoax. Very questionable edit history, including creation which was a probable copy paste from a ryan seacrest article, that was CSD'd, then that was removed by an IP, whose only contributions were within the last few hours, and early contributions were COI warnings to others, but yet chastised reverters for not considering the "newbies". Then a few bizarre additions to other articles by a geographical range of IPs.

Possible hoax, possible copy paste. Want some more eyes to make sure this isn't some shenanigans. Shadowjams (talk) 09:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I watchlisted this some minutes ago. Looks strange, impossible to tell WP:N for now. Will check back later. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - For those who look at the history, edit by edit, it's pretty clear that a new editor copied the Ryan Seacrest article and then proceeded to change it section by section. That is, until Shadowjams started reverting their edits and leaving warning after warning on their talk page, probably scaring them away. Talk about biting the newbies! 69.181.249.92 (talk) 09:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Hqb tagged it for speedy (because it was a virtual copy), and then the above IP removed that speedy... after that the creator continued to mess with it, at some point flagging huggle (mostly because it removed 3 paragraphs of sourced info), which I undid. I did that two more times until investigating further, leading us to where we are.

I never actually touched the article until after the 69 ip removed the CSD tag from another editor, and XLinkBot was triggered by the editor's removal. Just for context on the above IP's comments. Shadowjams (talk) 09:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you understand now that you reverted without understanding what your reverts were undoing? If that's the case, I think you should rescind the warnings you issued to the article creator. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 09:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Weird article. Can't tell if it is a hoax, but unreferenced and not obvious notability seems to indicate delete to me. If it is kept it needs to be cleaned up quite a bit and properly referenced DRosin (talk) 15:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Given that this article is essentially a badly formatted copy of this user page at Commons, I don't know what to think. If he's real and did win that pile of awards as an Atlanta disc jockey then there should be coverage to satisfy both notability and verifiability. Further investigation is warranted. - Dravecky (talk) 19:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: It's not a hoax, given this personal website and there's sufficient coverage for "Steve Barnes" winning radio awards in Atlanta in 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999 for me to believe the thresholds can be crossed. - Dravecky (talk) 19:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note - The above concerns over the hoax issue appear to be resolved. Issue currently is the notability of the subject. Shadowjams (talk) 05:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shimeru 07:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. His acting credentials don't pass WP:ENT. As a radio personality, he has won some awards; however none of them are what I would call well know or significant. in that respect, I feel that he fails WP:BIO Movementarian (Talk) 12:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, insufficient reliable coverage. Questionable edit history also needs to be gotten rid of; this is essentially an unreferenced and recently-created BLP. Nyttend (talk) 12:37, 26 June 2010 (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.

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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zeena Schreck

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

Long unreferenced BLP, questionable notability, full of gossip Yworo (talk) 05:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The individual does have some coverage[15][16][17][18][19] and the article may be salvagable... but it does needs a MAJOR sandblasting. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Among those five examples of "coverage", this is a fascinating article indeed -- but ZS has only a bit part within it. Hoary (talk) 21:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well... that article offers something more than a trivial mention, it addresses the subject directly and in detail... and WP:GNG specifically allows that the subject need not be the main topic of the source material. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Here's the direct and detailed (or not) address: Some of [her dad's] diabolic transmissions can be heard as well on the somewhat campy 1966 LP The Satanic Mass, which features various unholy rituals, most spectacularly the demonic baptism of his three-and-a-half-year-old daughter, Zeena. ¶ Zeena Schreck was most likely the world's first famous Satanic toddler. Besides practicing the black arts, Schreck too is a musician; also an actress, photographer, and writer. She reigned as High Priestess and public spokesperson of the Church of Satan from 1985 until her resignation in 1990. "World's most famous [anything]" is always promising, but unfortunately I can't think of any other satanic toddlers and suspect that there's little competition. -- Hoary (talk) 04:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question: She's second author of a book that I (in the reality-based community) vaguely infer consists of twaddle and that Amazon says is "Bestsellers Rank: #1,347,382 in Books": rather dismal in its own genre, if you consider that this thing makes it to "#10,458 in Books". It's claimed that she's a photographer -- any noteworthy exhibitions or published photobooks? -- Hoary (talk) 21:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. I LOL'd a little at the ranking# 1,347,382 in Books. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 02:06, 26 June 2010 (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.

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. T. Canens (talk) 02:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stephano Barberis

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

Borderline advertising, not sourced, and not written in a neutral tone. May not be notable, but I'm not sure of the exact rules around musical directors. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 10:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless cleaned up for NPOV and clarification of notability. There are strings of awards there but they're cited only to some generic page, and it's altogether unclear whether they are significant awards. Stifle (talk) 10:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless better sources become available. Many of the claimed awards are awards for videos he worked on- not awards that he himself was awarded. Most of the awards are purely regional in scope; this person's sole claim to notability is the Video Director of the Year awards in 2007 and 2008 from the Canadian Country Music Association, but as far as I can determine, those awards weren't reported on by any independent sources. None of the biographical information in the article is verified in any independent sources. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As per your request, I've located a variety of external and independent sources - press releases, newspaper articles - will continue to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanis103 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Er... the two that look like newspaper articles are both dead links. Press releases aren't independent sources, so they won't be useful, and awards that are purely local in scope won't be useful, either, as you already have those in the article. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is odd. The first dead link should have been an article in the "Langley Advance," but when I searched their archives for "Stephano Barberis," I got zero hits. The second looked like a link to something in "Canada.com," but not only was it a dead link, but when I searched their archives for "Stephano Barberis," I got zero hits there, too. How did you reach those articles? I can't find them at all. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I did a google search for Stephano Barberis and Sweatshop Union as well as Stephano Barberis and The Higgins. I could open the pages there and in a new tab but when put on here it created a dead link. [20] Here's one of the links. It works on my computer so I'm not sure what happened. Kanis103 (talk) 00:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ah! I can see that one, and it's definitely the sort of thing we're looking for- if I had one more like that (since the criteria call for 'multiple'), I'd almost certainly change my opinion. I'm going offline so don't be disappointed if I don't change my opinion right away when you post them. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Here's another one, but once again it comes up as a dead link on Wiki but I'm able to read via Google search. [21]Kanis103 (talk) 00:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pointy Keep. Better sourced, and far more notable awards, than the plague of articles on porn performers which survive AFDs based on non-independent industry-promotional awards [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] almost ad infinitum. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per meeting WP:ANYBIO. Article needs cleanup for style and tone, and the addition of proper (and available) sourcing, but surmountable issues are not cause for deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems unnecessarily verbose and borderline advertising. I have googled awards such as the CCMAs and they are returned below the the annual Call Centre Management Awards. Does this mean that Wikipedia should include the biographies of notable call centre managers? I am all for the democratisation of Wikipedia but if we allow local awards to be deemed meritorious, where do we stop? School prizes? The biography is also ludicrously self-aggrandising: "Throughout most of elementary and secondary school, the somewhat-reclusive Stephano became known for his imaginative ideas and unique writing, always combining some hybrid of eccentric premise, unique fantasy, and bizarre sequence of events." Source? Does Mr. Barberis have an official biographer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.86.179.58 (talk) 12:21, 24 June 2010 (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.

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 List of Total Drama series characters. T. Canens (talk) 02:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carter Hayden

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

Pretty minor film and voice actor, I can find no coverage in reliable sources. Not notable. Fences&Windows 19:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 19:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 19:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fail both the General Notability Guideline and the Entertainer guideline. Note that i still have to find a Reliable Source to assert the roles performed so Verifiability is also an issue. All i found is this from the Anime News Network users editable encyclopedia part, so not RS. --KrebMarkt 19:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 20:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing notability criteria. However, if some source come forward praising his film or television work, I'd be glad to consider a keep. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Struck, See my reasoning below. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The information you added says "Dex Hamilton: Alien Entomologist (26 episodes, 2008-2009) and "Total Drama Island (14 episodes, 2007-2009)". Isn't it a notable role if it appears that many times in a series? Two different notable series this person has been in, plus appearances in other things, some of which we don't know the extent of. Dream Focus 11:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. Having what appears to be a minor voice part in an animated series is not in itself evidence of notability; it is coverage in secondary sources which establishes notability, not verifiability. The same goes for the appeal to "other things we don't know the extent of"; it is precisely because we do not know the extent of these "other things" that we cannot pretend to offer a reliable biography of the subject based on existing coverage. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With respects, Chris... his argument is not per WP:NOTINHERITED, it is per WP:ENT, and the meeting of WP:ENT requires WP:V of the roles without also demanding that the required WP:V must also meet WP:GNG. Policy here is not at odds with guideline... and I can understand his reasoning, as all the various subcriteria of WP:N are set in place to give editors other considerations toward notability in instances where the GNG is not met. Insisting that they somehow must, acts in contravention to those guidelines and consensus for their interpretation. None of the notability subcriteria at WP:BIO mandate also meeting the GNG... else why have any of the subcriteria at all? Thusly, an actor can be ascertained notable by meeting either GNG or ENT, but never need meet both. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, this isn't correct. The GNG is our notability guideline. The purpose of the sub-guidelines is to imply that a subject passes the GNG because, even if they cannot be found directly, reliable sources are likely to exist somewhere in a copious and reliable enough manner due to the nature of the topic. It is possible to pass the GNG while failing a sub-guideline (for instance, minor actors who are famous for other reasons), but never the other way around, as sub-guidelines imply that the GNG is probably met in specialist publications that we just have to find. However, in this case it is not yet established that this subject passes WP:ENT because fourth billing as a voice actor is not necessarily a notable role. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Chris... but they are all our notability guidelines, and giving undue strength to one acts to diminish the reason, intent, and consensus for use of the others. Interestingly, I have been in many discussions where an individual easily met the GNG, but editors insisted that failure of meeting subsidary guideline equated to non-notability. It cannot be had both ways. The instructions at WP:BIO naturally start off with WP:BASIC and referring back the the GNG. But important to this discussion, is BIO's "Additional criteria" which states "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included" with then the sub-criteria of BIO following... ENT among them. Consider for instance, the instruction at WP:PROF that specifically acknowledges that secondary sources are not required... and the instructions at WP:ATH that allow notability simply for competing at a pro level in some sport... and the instructions at WP:ANYBIO that allows notability for the winning of awards. The meeting of the instructions of the supportive guidelines must always be WP:Verified in reliable sources, but that simple verification is not mandated to alwayd itself be significant coverage, however preferred, else the sub-criteria would be pointless. Yes, it is possible to pass GNG while failing subsidary notability guidelines (and that's why we look at the GNG first)... but the reverse is also possible per guideline, as notability guidelines are meant to be more a long leash and not a short tether. In summation, and with respects, it is possible to be found notable through meeting subsidary guidelines without always passing GNG, as that is why the supportive criteria were established. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't follow that. Which notability criteria does he meet? --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 09:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None at this time, but worth considering as a redirect. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnotable voice actor that fails WP:BIO and WP:N; with no significant coverage in reliable sources impossible to comply properly with WP:BLP and Wikipedia does not exist purely to mirror his IMDB role listings, which is all this article can do. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the Total Drama Island List of Total Drama series characters, the more notable of the series for which this individual has multiple appearances. I had thought at first to suggest a redirect to the Network Ten show Dex Hamilton: Alien Entomologist, where this individual has the his greatest number of appearances (28 of 28 episodes, 2008 through 2009), but TDI is the more notable of the two shows. So, after consideration, I have struck my delete above.~~, as a redirect will preserve the history until such time, if ever, that~~ IF his career grows and he receives coverage enough, he might merit a seperate article, but for now it is TOO SOON Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a game where one tries to preserve article revisions using whatever tricks are available. Either the subject meets the notability guidelines or it doesn't. If the subject later becomes notable then the article can be undeleted. Stop wasting people's time trying to redefine the deletion process on individual AfDs. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Individual AFDs are where guideline application occurs, so addressing instances as they arise at AFD is proper. Wikipedia is chock full of redirects intended to send readers to where their search for information has context, as many times something non-notable is still a valid search term and a redirects are one of the guideline recommended options that serve the project. And no, I am not playing a game and do not think civil discussion of guideline is either a "trick" or a timewaster. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He was on every episode of a notable show, as one of the five main characters. Dex Hamilton: Alien Entomologist (26 episodes, 2008–2009) (TV) As a voice actor he was on Total Drama Island as Noah, one of the main characters, for (14 episodes, 2007–2009) (TV) and then did the voice of Noah for the follow up show Total Drama World Tour. Looks like he was a significant part of these notable shows. Dream Focus 18:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Total Drama World Tour appears to feature a significant number of voice actors. The assertion that the subject played a significant part on the show requires rather more evidence than an assertion of fact. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:19, 22 June 2010 (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.

David Cropper

The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. 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 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gia Lodge-O'Meally

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

fails WP:ENT (1 role [28]) and WP:BIO. [29] nothing in gnews. LibStar (talk) 00:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Highly obscure, poorly covered Vartanza (talk) 12:20, 18 June 2010 (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.

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 Siobhan Mailey. To say the least, it is a plausible search term. –MuZemike 01:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phoebe Dynevor

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

fails WP:ENT. one role career. LibStar (talk) 07:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Concur, should be speedy. Csrwizard (talk) 07:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We don't speedy sourced articles with an assertion of notability, unless they are in violation of WP:BLP or WP:COPYVIO. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}
Delete. Only one role. (Also note that the only reference given is a pay site, so it's ineligible). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability. — Timneu22 · talk 12:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only trivial coverage that I could find, only one significant role. No indication of awards or anything else that would make her meet any guideline for inclusion. decltype (talk) 13:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge to Waterloo Road (TV series) or to Siobhan Mailey as it is TOOSOON for this actress to have a seperate article. While glad to acknowledge her (so far) 17 episodes of Waterloo Road, what little coverage she has is for being part of their cast.[30] I added those to the article in anticipation of a merge and redirect so the information would be sourced.[31] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:46, 18 June 2010 (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.

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. JForget 12:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Soo Hoo

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

fails WP:ENT. at best he has 2 appearances in one show. the vast majority of his acting career is one off appearances. most of the gnews coverage refers to his photo at a ceremony. LibStar (talk) 06:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, probably weakly, as he was nominated for Supporting young actor award at the Young Artist Awards for his role as "Young Storm Shadow" in "GI Joe-Rise of Cobra.". I guess that's notable. — Timneu22 · talk 12:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per meeting both WP:ENT and WP:ANYBIO with an award win in 2009 for his role in Tropic Thunder, and an award nomination in 2010 for his role in G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra. Article needs some copyedit and additional sourcing to be properly encyclopdic... but surmountable issues are not a reason to delete. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep, Brandon Soo Hoo is an award winning child actor with 2 major roles in 2 block buster movies. Tropic Thunder where he earned major screen credit for, at the end of the film , "Introducing Brandon Soo Hoo", and the other G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra, he was a co-star, who was invited to the premiere and after parties. He won Young Artist Award for best performance in feature film for the first film and nominated for Young Artist Award for best performance in feature film for the 2nd film he made. I think that is notable. He has also guest starred in many TV series including 3 series in 2010 so far. NBC'S Community, Comedy Central's Workaholics and Nickelodeon's new pilot "Everyday Kid". This kid is going to make it big. He was also listed under Wikipedia's American Child Actor, American Martial Artist, American Tae Kwon Do Practitioner, American Wing Chun Practitioner, American people of chines descent and Young Artist Award winners. He deserves to be included in Wikipedia. They nominated him for deletion before and the concensus was Keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cc888 (talk • contribs) 00:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. The article is a BLP so a few more comments would be helpful. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets anybio with multiple award noms, and said awards indicate both roles were significant (which would make him meet ENT). I do not really see what has changed since the first AfD, which, despite garnering few comments, also ~~resulted in an unanimous~~had consensus to keep. decltype (talk) 07:31, 25 June 2010 (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.

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. looks like the sources offered have not been accepted as reliable so the consensus is to delete Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Kirby

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

Subject does not meet WP:GNG and/or WP:PEOPLE. Primary sources used in creating this article are Internet Movie Database (IMDb) and Rotten Tomatoes (RT). They list films by the subject, but do not discuss the subject in detail. The films themselves are not exactly notable (WP:NOTFILM). Have searched for sources about the subject, and have found more sites that list films by the subject (and even then they are not as complete as IMDb and RT; meaning the other sites list 1 or 2 films). Other sources added to determine nobility are a blog and fan site (or a self proclaimed movie critic). These are not reliable sources Akerans (talk) 22:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:PEOPLE, people are notable if they have a "large fan base or significant 'cult' following". Pierre Kirby is one of the most well known actors to play in Godfrey Ho's exploitation films, and he has gained a very large cult following. Also, it says that he's notable if he acted in a number of notable films, which he did according to WP:NOTFILM. Two of his films, "Zombie vs. Ninja" and "Thunder of Gigantic Serpent", were even notable enough to have articles here on Wikipedia. As for not having enough sources, that's being worked on. I'm going through Hong Kong film databases right now, so don't delete the article just yet. Rockhead126 (talk) 00:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He clearly has no notability as a martial artist. The article is a BLP with no reliable sources. The two films mentioned above have both been tagged for a lack of notability and lack of reliable sources. There's also no reliable source to show he has "a very large cult following." Papaursa (talk) 03:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the wild claims can not be verified. Even at IMdB, it says he has had several small parts in minor films. Bearian (talk) 20:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For Now - Purging the thing now doesn't make much sense. If this had come up before the Cinema Snob started talking about it, I'd agree with the others that the article doesn't have a lot of content. Post-Snob, though, there's a lot of people looking for information on the guy, and what better onus is there for editors to find stuff than a page that has something along the lins of "hey, this thing needs more sources"? I know, I know, the fact that I'm not linking to any policies is prolly going to turn one (or more) editor into a Red Lantern, but basically: keep the page, since a fairly popular web media program just started shining a big light on the guy, and rather than purging the thing, let it grow. But what do I know? (Yes, I know your answer: "the policies". But pfft.) 24.15.168.110 (talk) 04:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any reliable sources that show notability and speculating that he's going to be more popular is WP:CRYSTAL and still may not add any reliable sources. Astudent0 (talk) 13:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep there appears to be one source discussing him in great detail, another in some detail. Don't know the area well enough to say if they are RSes or not. Hobit (talk) 15:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neither blogs nor IMDB are usually considered reliable sources. The current policy on BLPs is that they must have reliable sources or they can be put up for BLPPROD, which is separate from the usual PROD (see WP:BLP). Why did you remove the BLPPROD for this article if you didn't know whether or not the sources were reliable? Astudent0 (talk) 16:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BLPPROD is only for articles that don't have sources of any type. IMDB is fine for that purpose. This one did at the time the BLPPROD was added. In any case, the problem with WP:RS is it often isn't clear if something is reliable or not. When in doubt I'd prefer discussion over just assuming one way or the other. Hobit (talk) 19:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it does say you need a reliable source. Here's the quote from WP:BLP--"a new proposed deletion process was established, requiring all BLPs created after March 18, 2010 to have at least one reliable source". That said, I'm find with an AfD discussion, although the article still needs reliable sources. If claims can't be verified, they shouldn't be there. Papaursa (talk) 01:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and CINEMA NOCTURNA appears to be a RS. The blog actually looks quite good as blogs go and might be reliable in this context. Hobit (talk) 19:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the Nocturna site itself, I finally got my calling though , I wanted to create a fan based web community of sorts that catered to films that we here in North America. [...] Though my knowledge is surpassed by others that would be my next step, to assemble a core group of fans with great knowledge of many of these films. In other words, its a fan site or WP:SPS. Akerans (talk) 20:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has a group of writers/contributors on staff. I'm not saying it's the NYT, but just because one person founded it doesn't make it a SPS. Hobit (talk) 21:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I meant. I was pointing out the fact the creator considers his writers/contributors as movie fans. For this SPS to be considered reliable his writers/contributors need to work in the relevant field, and he has demonstrated they do not. Hope that clears any confusion. Akerans (talk) 22:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you cite the quote you gave (work in the relevant field). It seems like an odd requirement. For example a NYT's sports writer doesn't work as an athlete. A movie critic doesn't normally create movies. And nothing requires a RS to actually get paid to be a RS as far as I know, but I'm willing to be wrong. Help? Hobit (talk) 00:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Work in the relevant field is from WP:SPS (paragraph two). I take that to mean, for example, a movie critic writes for NYT, and contributes to a fan site in his/her spare time. While they are not being paid to work on the fan site, they have worked in the relevant field, established themselves as a creditable source, and are more qualified to write about movies. Akerans (talk) 01:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I'm arguing that it isn't a SPS. The authors and the person controlling the content appear to (generally) be different. Hobit (talk) 07:58, 23 June 2010 (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.

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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zelda Tinska

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

Unsourced BLP, no indication of notability per WP:BIO according to the article and an (English) Google search. Some appearances in TV shows and elsewhere, but no apparent media coverage, zero hits in Google News, which is unusual for notable contemporary Western pop culture people. Sandstein 20:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet the notability guidelines. Lustralaustral (talk) 00:58, 29 June 2010 (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.

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 no consensus. going no consensus to allow some space for improvement and tranbslation of sources Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jelena Tinska

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

Unsourced BLP, no indication of notability per WP:BIO according to the article and an (English) Google search. Sandstein 20:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment Assistance of translating Serbian language sources [32][33][34] is needed else WP:UNKNOWNHERE may be this article's downfall. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Certainly has a fair few sources, even if we can't translate them accurately. She's also well known in Serbia, it seems, and the article, while unsourced, isn't libellous or poorly written. Default to keep. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 10:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least until we can get a better translation, etc. as there do appear to be reliable sources, and it doesn't make much sense to delete prematurely, if the shortcoming is our lack of knowledge at the moment and it is reasonably correctible Vartanza (talk) 18:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an unsourced BLP, no evidence the person meets the notability guidelines. Lustralaustral (talk) 01:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you might reconsider if the many Serbian sources found in Find sources receive translation. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep per my comments above. Article is now undergoing cleanup. Expansion and sourcing have commenced. Additional help would be appreciated. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:32, 2 July 2010 (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.

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 Sarah 16:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Verity Charlton

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

clearly fails WP:ENT. no extensive career here or ongoing notable roles looking at IMDB [35]. LibStar (talk) 06:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Has not had "significant roles" in multiple films, TV shows, etc.. Frickeg (talk) 00:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment IMDB does not give nor detract notability. With its instruction that include "other productions", WP:ENT is set in place to consider more things than just film... and even having a short "film" career is not ipso-facto non-notabiliy if it an be shown the subject meets ENT's consideration of "other productions" or meets WP:GNG. For example, a quick search finds Charlton receives positive critical response for her work in theater. In reviewing Raised in Captivity (2003), The Age writes "The character of Bernadette (Verity Charlton) for example, gives an almost text-book characterisation of bipolar disorder, swinging rapidly from anxiety-ravaged shouting to beatific calm".[36] In reviewing Loyal Women (2004), The Age writes "Verity Charlton is superb as Brenda, gradually developing the character's strength and natural leadership as she finds a way of surviving against crushing odds. The ensemble of seven women that includes the guest actors Carole Yelland and Christine Keogh, work strongly together under Denny Lawrence's direction. They create an impression of a group honed by harsh necessity into a vengeful squad capable of violence and cruelty as repugnant as that of the men".[37] In reviewing Vincent in Brixton (2005), The Age writes "Verity Charlton's gently unobtrusive presence as Eugenie... ...complete one of Red Stitch's most assured, polished productions.".[38]. So it is seen that her career consists of much more than a simple {and uncitable) IMDB listing. Positively writing of a stage actor in context to her performance and specifically praising her work within that review, does not fall under the cautions about "trivial" coverage of lists and databases, and with the GNG specifically assuring editors that the person "need not be the main topic of the source material", it must be considered that she may indeed merit inclusion with a bit of work. This is what I found in just a couple minutes. What else was missed? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 23 June 2010 (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.

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tama Matheson

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

fails WP:ENT, WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE . less than 2 appearances on 2 TV series. the supplied link is dead and 1 hit in gnews [39]. it is difficult to verify this acting and directing career which is not covered in reliable sources. LibStar (talk) 05:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if everything in the article is accepted at face value, it doesn't add up to notability. A couple of small parts on television and some gigs as "assistant to the director" at notable houses; his other acting and directing credits are in very small venues. The article has been neglected for years, as evidenced by the note that he "will star in" something in 2007! Google search finds nothing of significance. --MelanieN (talk) 13:34, 4 July 2010 (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.

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. Shimeru 21:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deniz Akdeniz

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

fails WP:ENT, has had 1 role on a TV series, and it is questionable whether being a participant in a games show counts as signficant other role. no real coverage in gnews either [40]. LibStar (talk) 05:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 5 episodes on one notable show, and 27 on another notable show, are both significant. After seeing your comments on [41] I'm certain you are going to go around nominating one entertainment article after another, based on your interpretations of that suggested guideline. Perhaps you could wait for more input from others, before doing any large scale deletion attempt. Dream Focus 05:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

more input from others in this AfD has been received below and noted so far majority supporting delete. thanks. LibStar (talk) 05:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Dream Focus 05:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you are obviously following me around, suggest you cease. LibStar (talk) 05:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

funny that Dream Focus, 2 votes below don't agree with your interpretation of the guideline. LibStar (talk) 03:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the AFD, not other editors. Dream Focus 06:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:KETTLE. LibStar (talk) 06:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. Just read my earlier comment. I should've placed that on your talk page, not here. Dream Focus 06:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant to AfD note - You both are not new, and I think you both known each other's predilections at AfD. Perhaps this recent wikihounding thread on Dream Focus's talk page could compel both of you to either seek some outside help or maybe abstain from AfD issues until that issue's concluded. I don't want any debate to spill over here, but just so there's context for everyone else, and some indication to you two that others have noticed this issue. Shadowjams (talk) 06:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad others have noticed if anything. LibStar (talk) 06:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Personal dispute above notwithstanding, I am unable to find significant coverage for this actor sufficient to found a meaningful encyclopedic article. Without such coverage, whether or not he passes WP:N, it is not possible to write a verifiable encyclopedic article on the topic. No prejudice against recreation, possibly after Tomorrow When The War Began is released and more coverage is (presumably) generated. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether or not he passes WP:N is what is important, not whether you personally feel it will be a meaningful article. Proper sourcing is a fixable problem. See WP:ATD.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Acting on a series only designed to fill time between shows is not only superfluous, but it might as well be classified on the level of an actor on a regular 30-second ad (and in only a few select cases do we have commercial actors having articles here). Only two other actors from the series have articles because they have had established acting histories, while this individual has not. Also I will probably say the Disney Channel Games "role" is in high probability incorrect, as his version of the series aired only on Disney's Australia and New Zealand networks, and the Disney Channel Games has exclusively American and Canadian actors from their US channel's series and it does not show up on his IMDb page. Nate • (chatter) 00:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DustFromWords and Nate. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sources found to establish notability. Even if the article technically passes WP:ENT (which is tenuous, at best), it still fails WP:GNG and WP:N. SnottyWong ^squeal 23:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per SnottyWong, this article's claim to meet WP:ENT is unconvincing. Reyk _YO! 02:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to As the Bell Rings. Fails WP:ENT as he has not had significant roles in two productions. We'll likely be recreating this once Tomorrow, When the War Began (film) is released though. - BalthCat (talk) 00:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete or merge: fails notability guidelines and could not find sources. not appropriate for a stand alone article but seems like it could have a suitable merge or redirect target... Arskwad (talk) 03:43, 21 June 2010 (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.

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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Zamani

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

Subject is a videographer. Does not obviously meet WP:ARTIST.

The artist's website looks like an ad for video services; his portfolio includes commercials, web design, wedding photography, and some music videos. The music videos seem somewhat like art to me, but overall I doubt whether he is presenting his own work as creative innovation and in any case I cannot find any third-party reviews of him as an artist.

He might be notable as a primary promoter of Persian rap music, but I am unable to reference that he is either promoting himself as such or more importantly that any RS has suggested as much.

There are a list of artists on this page whose videos he has produced. Some do rap; I am guessing that all are Persian. Actually all the videos are polished and the artists are good; I nominated all of them for deletion, though, because I cannot find any evidence that any of them meet WP:BAND. Blue Rasberry 02:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see no reason why to delete this interesting article. Rirunmot 00:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rirunmot (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. But I have to say that some of those guys are very popular in Iran.Farhikht (talk) 10:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: doesnt stablish notability. --Spada 2 ♪♫ (talk) 13:38, 29 June 2010 (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.

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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Luther Schofill, Jr.

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

Interesting but apparently non-notable person, film director and academic, lover of classical music. Nuujinn (talk) 18:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - the sources verify his existence and some of his work, but he fails WP:PROF and most of the sources are not reliable or independent. Bearian (talk) 21:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think a strong case can be made that Guggenheim fellows are per se notable. They are a discrete category of academics/artists thought by their peers to be at the top of their game. Vartanza (talk) 12:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Often characterized as "midcareer" awards, Guggenheim Fellowships are intended for men and women who have already demonstrated exceptional capacity for productive scholarship or exceptional creative ability in the arts.", from their website. Also, see the List_of_Guggenheim_Fellowships_awarded_in_1974. Would you say that these awards are based on prior notability or as a way of enabling recipients to do work that would earn notability? --Nuujinn (talk) 14:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I did a random sampling of the list of Guggenheim Fellowships and that a bit less than half are redlinked, going back to 1950, so I am not convinced that the fellowship by itself is evidence of notability. The remainder of the work - a published article, a few short films (the link to "Spurt of Blood" is incorrect by the way) just doesn't reach the criteria for notability. Seaphoto^Talk 05:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not seeing adequate evidence that his filmmaking is enough for WP:CREATIVE, and while the Guggenheim is a worthy accomplishment I'm pretty sure it's less of an indication of notability and more something one gives academics to encourage them to be productive. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:25, 23 June 2010 (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.

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. T. Canens (talk) 01:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maliksi Morales

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

fails WP:ENT and WP:BIO. 1 hit in gnews. IMDB only confirms 1 appearance. LibStar (talk) 12:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per seeming to meet WP:ENT for his "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." As U.S.-based IMDB is not quite the source upon which to depend on information about Media of the Philippines. I did find several English language articles that dealt with this child actor in some manner,[42][43][44][45][46] but we'll need input from Wikipedians with access to Filipino and Tagalog sources, so that WP:UNKNOWNHERE does not work against him. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete'- notability not established, at least not for the English language Wikipedia. Even the articles cited by Schmidt (thank you for looking them up!) fall into the "what happened to him?" category, and the roles mentioned in the article are not enough to cross the threshold. If additional information could be found to establish notability, I would reconsider. Seaphoto^Talk 04:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find enough reliable references for this person, also try not to confuse this person with Makisig Morales. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:14, 26 June 2010 (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.

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 no consensus. T. Canens (talk) 23:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maxwell Huckabee

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

fails WP:ENT. the best is 7 appearances in 1 series. and we don't relax guidelines for child actors. LibStar (talk) 06:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Child actor pushing nicely at meeting WP:ENT. We don't judge actors on only their best appearances, but on the depth of their careers (even if short) as well. 7 episodes of Mad Men and 4 episodes of Dexter on top of named roles in several other television series seems to show "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions"... and his career is not over yet. It serves the project to have this article remain and grow over time and through regular editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it is questionable whether these are significant roles. LibStar (talk) 03:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am in strong agreement with MichaelQSchmidt on this one. These are important roles in important projects. And yes, we have not seen the last of this actor. The point made about the "depth" of a given career is long overdue in these discussion. Evalpor (talk) 04:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The essence of the article is this: "Maxwell Huckabee is a child actor who took his first role in 2006." It lists his roles, but offers no other details about the subject. Where is the "significant coverage" to pass WP:GNG or WP:ENT? I need to know something other than what is self-evident in order to recommend "keep". Location (talk) 04:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What more do you want? He's seven. Named roles in multiple major network series look good enough to me.Minnowtaur (talk) 06:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I want something more than: "He's seven and appeared as kid A in TV show X, kid B in TV show Y, and kid C in TV show Z." The depth of coverage of this subject does not appear to be significant. Location (talk) 07:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That suggests to me that the article should be expanded a little, not deleted -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You will notice that I have held off making my recommendation. If there are reliable sources with significant coverage, now is the time to use them to expand the article. Location (talk) 04:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The meeting of ENT requires verifiability, but does not also require meeting GNG. While in agreement that meeting the GNG would be delightful, if it were the "only" guideline editors were allowed to consider, there would be no need for any of the notability sub-criteria to exist at all. Interstingly, and toward your request for the preferred "significant coverage", I have seen far too many discussions where editors argued for deletion of articles which quite positively met GNG but failed a chosen sub-criteria. The sword seems to cut both ways, depending on who is wielding it. Since meeting ENT is the proposistion, it would be best to follow the nominator's lead and discuss whether or not the verifiable roles are significant. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ENT is a sub-guideline of WP:BIO, which is in turn a sub-guideline of WP:N. Although it is wise to give some thought to the reasoning of others, I think it is best that each editor eventually measure the article against all relevant policies and guidelines independent of what the nominator or other editors have recommended. Your assertion that "[t]he meeting of ENT requires verifiability, but does not also require meeting GNG" is certainly not universally accepted nor is your understanding of how the various sub-criteria work. There is no policy or even guideline that indicates a subject has inherent notability in the absence of significant or in-depth coverage. Again, if there are reliable sources with significant coverage discussing this actor and/or his roles, now is the time to use them to expand the article. Location (talk) 05:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no doubt that if a 7-year-old somehow had significant coverage in reliable sources, this discussion might be different. But if an editor believes it serves the project to have a stub remain and be expanded over time and through regular editing, as for example User:Minnowtaur seems to be hinting at above, that would be use of relevent guidelines as well. I suppose this is devolving into the "Immediatism vs Eventualism" argument: If Wikipedia is nearing completion, having something as perfect as possible right away is paramount vs If Wikipedia is still growing, then accepting an artcle as imperfect and allowing it to grow over time and through regular editing might serve. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No source, just a short bio. I like to insiste that we don't talk about the future actor b/c the wikipedia IS NOT a crystal ball. we just check the article and vote. If someone want to save the article he has to find reliable source. and a question: These are important roles in important projects, ok, good! but how do you know this?Farhikht (talk) 13:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I see no significant coverage in reliable sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The assertion here is not that the actor might meet GNG, but that he meets ENT... and meeting ENT does not also ~~require~~ mandate always meeting GNG, else there would be no reason to have notability subcriteria at all. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think he fails ENT. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the part in Dexter was fairly substantial. The stub needs better sourcing, of course Bearian (talk) 20:21, 28 June 2010 (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.

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. The reasons for deletion were more policy-grounded and hence outweighed the reasons for retention here. –MuZemike 01:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Antje Thiele

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

Fails WP:ENT. delete UtherSRG (talk) 17:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - we need someone fluent in German, with knowledge of and assess to resources for German theater. Subject is an accomplished actress with serious and important credits. I suspect she passes notability, but would like some help in determining such. Evalpor (talk) 19:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No good. All productions listed are below-the-radar shows. No reviews in mainstream press. East of Borschov (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- UtherSRG (talk) 17:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- UtherSRG (talk) 17:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She plays the wife of the protagonist in a large, important, and much-publicized upcoming film, which stars Vanessa Redgrave. Softlavender (talk) 23:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How does she pass WP:ENT in your opinion? - UtherSRG (talk) 23:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article substantiates significant (starring or among top three stars) roles in multiple notable productions. Softlavender (talk) 04:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As per softlavender's statement above.--BenJonson (talk) 16:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Upcoming films" is WP:CRYSTAL. I'd suggest you try writing on de.wiki first... see what they say... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm probably the closest we'll get to someone meeting Evalpor's request, as a German-speaker with access to resources on German theatre, and I certainly wouldn't have tried to start an article on this lady.—S Marshall T/C

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.

Proposed deletions

Comment on the talk pages of the articles, not here.

2007-2008
Atsuko Kawada (via WP:PROD on 4 July 2008) Cherylee Houston (via WP:PROD on 21 December 2007) Robert Phillips (Actor) (via WP:PROD on 21 December 2007) Lloyd Sherr (via WP:PROD on 21 December 2007) Michael Goz (via WP:PROD on 15 December 2007) Deleted Amy O'Malley (via WP:PROD on 2 December 2007) Deleted

Clément Laloy (via WP:PROD on 3 May 2009)

Christopher Ashlee

Could somebody please head over to the fiasco that's going on over at this article and ask the clearly POV'd editors to stop intentionally maligning the article to have it deleted? Thanks. 207.237.230.164 (talk) 16:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://www.emcperth.ca/20100624/Entertainment/Perth-based+online+show+casts+spell+on+viewers

[1] ttp://www.emcperth.ca/20100624/Entertainment/Perth-based+online+show+casts+spell+on+viewers

[1]

@@ Line 29: / Line 29: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali Zamani}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Luther Schofill, Jr.}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sebastian Elmaloglou}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maliksi Morales}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maxwell Huckabee}}