Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kirk Fox

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. Stifle (talk) 08:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kirk Fox

Subject doesn't meet the notability standards of WP:N, WP:BIO or WP:ENTERTAINER. (N.B. The sole named contributor to the article appears to have been the subject himself – until the article was tagged with ''{{coi}}'', after which it's been IPs.) I've no prejudice to recreation should notability be established in the future. Jim Ward ^{(talk·stalk)} 21:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~ - He appears to be an up-and-coming comedian who is on the cusp as evidenced by this one sentence mention. And he has an award from a comedy festival which is vaguely mentioned. And there is even a full paragraph on him. But taken altogether, this is not substatial enough for me to say it meets notability. -- Whpq (talk) 13:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - While I cannot agree with all of the sourcing provided by Michael (For example: claiming a leading role in A Heart to Tender which is actually a 6 minute comdey short), having dedicated comedy special on the Comedy Network is enough to push me over from a weak delete. -- Whpq (talk) 11:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Did some research per WP:AFTER and was able to expand and source the article. He meets WP:ENTERTAINER ("Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions."). Needs more, but there is much more available in Google News. As long as the COI author is mindful to not edit himself, the article can grow naturally. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - Can you point to specific coverage from the results, because my own search, as I mentioned, only uncovers passing mentions. -- Whpq (talk) 13:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Another reply – Michael's list of the subject's film and TV appearances is a big step forward for the article; kudos to him for this undertaking. It's clearer that the subject has been and remains a working actor. I've sampled (though not exhaustively) the filmography that Michael provided and see small parts in most films and top-10 billing in some non-notables. I wonder, though, if someone can articulate just how WP:ENTERTAINER is satisfied with regard to significant roles in multiple, notable productions. Thanks, Jim Ward ^{(talk·stalk)} 16:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response My reasoning is this: Bio's basic criteria state "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability", which statement indicates that if the depth of coverage is itself not substantial, muliple instances of less-than-substantial but more-than-trival may be considered when determining notability. And then at WP:ENT we have "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions". His having significant roles in notable films is not to be discounted simply because he has also had minor roles in non-notable films. All actors begin with minor and work toward significant. Such is part of the career process. Some examples....
    1. Post Grad, supporting role in notable film... not an unnamed descriptive, but a named role.[1]
    2. A Heart too Tender, lead role [2]
    3. Still Waiting..., significant role... even made center on the DVD's cover [3]
    4. Heckle U co-star and co-writer of CBS's debut webisode series. [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]
    5. Pauly Shore Is Dead major supporting and co-writer.[9], [10], [11], [12]
    6. Tennis, Anyone...?, co-star, co-writer, and co-producer [13], [14], [15]
  - Also to be considered per WP:ENT are his significant multiple roles as a stand up comedian:
    1. Natural Born Komics, co-star and co-writer [16], [17], [18], [19]
    2. Comedy Central Presents special Comedy Central Presents: Kirk Fox, Its all him... [20], [21], [22], [23]
    3. Live at Gotham,co-star [24], [25], [26], [27]
    Note: Not having an article on Wikipedia (yet) does not mean a film or project is itself non-notable... it only means the article is not yet written. I believe the few examples above to be indicative of his meeting WP:BIO and WP:ENT. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, I think we're just singing from different hymnals about notability of this subject. Nonetheless, the tide seems to be moving in the keep direction, which perhaps it should. Kudos again for your comprehensive work on this piece; it's vastly improved. Regards, Jim Ward ^{(talk·stalk)} 05:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For those kind words, thank you. If kept, I expect the article to continue to grow and remain worthy of Wikipedia. Good editing, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believe Michael has shown enough to just push this over the notability line. Well done.--Kubigula (talk) 03:45, 3 June 2009 (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.