Talk:Mike Pollock (voice actor)

This article was nominated for deletion on June 28 2016. The result of the discussion was delete and redirect to Doctor Eggman#Voice actor portrayal.

Reinstate the article

Mike Pollock has been much, much more than simply Dr. Eggman. This isn't a Deem Bristow situation where he really doesn't have many roles.Gokaiblue16 (talk) 19:16, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mile Pollock is a very talented voice actor with a lot of great roles. He is known for so much more other than just Dr. Eggman. There are plenty of reasons as to why he should continue to have his own page, as there is a surplus of information about him and his performances. I have seen firsthand people genuinely looking up Wikipedia to see his other roles, so I am aware that there is demand for a full page on him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrthegamerdude (talk • contribs) 20:16, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This was a pathetic decision. Could it be that the user that recommended deletion is just jealous? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.75.216 (talk) 19:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article did not meet WP:BASIC. You need to bring secondary sources indepedent of the subject, that discuss his roles in detail and that are not Sonic/Eggman. No cast announcements. No casual mentions. No primaries such as screen credits. No Sega blog. No primary-sourced interviews. None of the secondaries were presented during the AFD discussion, so I couldn't get it saved. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So should I be hiring a PR firm to get media coverage that contributors can then independently discover and contribute? The mainstream media have yet to come beating down my door of their own volition. Itsamike (talk) 21:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Czar: for this question. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:46, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you are Mike Pollock, (1) I wouldn't expect much help if your strategy is to brigade inexperienced Twitter users. (2) You might be interested in our policy on biographies of living people for ways in which we work with reputations of living people. (3) In short, yes, if you had more coverage of your life in reliable, independent sources (e.g., major newspapers, IGN, GameSpot, etc.) we would likely reconsider a dedicated article. Right now there isn't enough such sourcing to write anything of substance without heavily relying on primary sources. However I've rarely seen happy results when PR firms are involved to circumvent a lack of coverage when said coverage does not come naturally.

czar 22:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hi Mike. Having an article on Wikipedia doesn't add or subtract from the value of your work. There's a very good essay on the subject at Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. I encourage you to read it. In some cases, having a Wikipedia article about yourself can even be a bad thing, since Wikipedia will report the facts, whatever they are. If you find yourself embroiled in a significant controversy in the future and have a Wikipedia article, you can probably bet on the verifiable details being very publicly available on your Wikipedia page. You could theoretically get media coverage and then come back and ask for someone to write your biography, but that's unlikely to be successful. We require reliable secondary sources for articles. Interviews, etc. which a PR firm could set up would all be primary sources, meaning they wouldn't establish notability. I'm sure you could easily get blogs and the like to write about you through a PR firm, but those wouldn't be reliable, so they also wouldn't establish notability. A PR firm isn't going to be able to get significant secondary coverage of you in the New York Times or even Kotaku without any attached news story. If your heart is really set on being in Wikipedia, the answer would be to go for high-profile roles, but that's far easier said than done. Industry insiders aren't going to look at whether you have a Wikipedia article to determine your value as a voice over artist. The best thing you can do is keep doing what you're doing. Those who try desperately to get media attention usually fail to get coverage or succeed in the wrong way, earning negative coverage as a result. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

His body of work should be enough. If there can be an article for every episode of Seinfeld, then there can be an article for Mike Pollock. Gokaiblue (talk) 22:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Gokaiblue: Please read WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. These are the standards by which articles are judged when determining whether an article should be kept on the encyclopedia. While Wikipedia is not made of paper, so we can have many more pages than most encyclopedias can, we still have standards for inclusion to ensure that we're a repository of knowledge on people/events/things that have enduring notability; stuff that people will want to read about long into the future. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:32, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BURob13 I have read both, and for the sources aspect, I think it's a little hypocritcal to keep many other VAs articles as I'm sure there aren't much "secondary sources" talking about their roles (depending on how you define the term). As for the notability, he meets 2/3, like most Voice actors. Gokaiblue (talk) 22:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Czar: for this response. I am Mike Pollock, Czar, and I approved this message. I appreciate your candid response. I had — and have — no plans to deputize Twitter users of any level of experience, but as my own one-man promotion machine, I like to keep my social media followers informed of important career developments, of which this certainly is one, and since the Talk page is the place to talk about articles, I'd like them to hear what went down from the horses' mouths. It'd be nice if they could air their own thoughts as well, of course. I'd hope they'd do so respectfully.

And Rob, thank you for your well-reasoned and entirely logical explanation. Having read that, I'm much less eager to have my own article. I'm as grateful as I can be for the redirect, since the alternative of a dead-end search is much less appealing. It may not help the people who were looking for info on my other work, but one would hope they have the wherewithal to also search other sources. If it makes your lives easier, I can re-point social media followers back to this page to read your explanations, and suggest they give up their fight with a clear conscience.

I've also noticed the Simple English article is on the chopping block. I'll head over and vote for its similar demise. I don't know if my vote will carry any greater or lesser value than any other, but I'd like the world to know I approved that decision. Itsamike (talk) 22:49, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just gonna say, you know you're not really doing the website you work for a lot of favours by stating that having a page on here could be undesirable. That quip aside... I gotta say, having an article about a fictional character being more important than the artist who portrayed him for the last decade seems kinda trivializing to me, like implying someone's career is basically equivalent to the most familiar role they're known for. That said, not to throw other VA's under the bus, but having a quick look through the "American male voice actors" list on here, I'm seeing plenty of people who are apparently still notable enough for their own page despite only really being famous for one big role among several "lesser" ones (and in some cases not even that). But hey, that's none of my business. -H Hog (talk) 23:21, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]