Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Antony-Barber

Paul Antony-Barber

Paul Antony-Barber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Fails NACTOR + GNG –Davey2010^Talk 02:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Weak Keep as borderline. While he has only had one major role in a notable TV production (Anubis), he has made numerous appearances in Television, and in a number of films. I think this might meet the 'prolific' requirement in WP:NACTOR "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." Ross-c (talk) 07:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry, you have to check sources before making statements. It was nowhere near a "major role". As for NACTOR, please pay attention to the word "significant", which is none of him. Anyway, sources, please. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• I think we need to keep this article, such as Ross-c said, he had a role in many movies, television series...---Christaya1002 (talk) 10:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• Delete: as non-notable actor. This is an encyclopaedia not a blog, or a fansite or Variety. Quis separabit? 13:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia has clear notability guidelines. If you feel that those guidelines should be different from what they are, then that is a discussion for another place than an AfD discussion on an individual article. Ross-c (talk) 15:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually Wikipedia has quite debatable and contested standards regarding notability, hence the thousands of articles which have been in AFDs, CFDs, etc. "If you feel that those guidelines should be different from what they are, then that is a discussion for another place than an AfD discussion on an individual article." I don't know what this means. I simply pointed out that many "editors" misuse Wikipedia to create vanity, promotional, etc. articles or articles about personal friends, relatives, etc. and some treat Wikipedia as thought it were a fansite or blogsite, or for blatant attempts to promote things or people. That is without prejudice to this article as I am speaking in general. Quis separabit? 15:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Ross: re:Wikipedia has clear notability guidelines. Please pay attention to the word "guidelines" and read about differences between guidelines and policies. And after you've done that, please explain how your opponent violated the guidelines or policies. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• delete No evidence that this actor did something more than 3-rd row roles. He is said to be "best known" for a role in a supporting cast, unknown how much support was there by him. No detailed discussion of the person. Wikipedia is not yellow pages for starving actors. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

On this Wikipedia, we have many articles about non-notable people (not only about actors). Wikipedia has articles on all kinds of people. Some people have article about them on Wikipedia though they do not deserve article. I think that actor who had role in numerous TV shows, movies ... deserves to have an article on Wikipedia. I can and give examples of the significant roles who this man had.---Christaya1002 (talk) 09:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)