Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Actors and filmmakers: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 22:22, 29 June 2014 editAnomieBOT (talk \| contribs)Bots6,582,305 edits Archiving closed XfDs (errors?): ← Previous edit		Revision as of 23:03, 29 June 2014 edit undo137.63.63.65 (talk) →Actors and filmmakers Next edit →
Line 9:		Line 9:
	<!--New AFDs should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->		<!--New AFDs should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
	{{Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Lisa_Hammer}}		{{Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Lisa_Hammer}}
	{{Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Ari_Teman}}
	{{Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Kyline_Alcantara}}		{{Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Kyline_Alcantara}}
	{{Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Abid_Mahi}}		{{Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Abid_Mahi}}

Revision as of 23:03, 29 June 2014

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


Deletion Sorting Project
(talk)Project page Lists (by ABC) Lists (by topic) Lists (computer-readable) AfD: Today, Yesterday Delsort scripts
v t e

Deletion Sorting
Project

AfD: Today, Yesterday

Delsort scripts

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 {{Misplaced Pages: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 {{Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages'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 no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 11:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Lisa Hammer

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

Unsourced BLP that was created too long ago for a BLP PROD. Though she has some notable credits/connections, I'm not seeing enough to pass WP:BIO. — Rhododendrites | 03:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 22:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Delete, but weak delete, could not find reliable sources, although what I have trouble explaining is why this person has a rather high pageview count, averaging 50 pageviews/day. So what is going on here? Not much comes up after about 8 SERP pages. Maybe she is borderline notable in a somewhat non-mainstream area (Goth etc) so sources are not showing up? Not sure what to make of this, but I could change my vote with new information.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Comment - purely for consistency's sake this must be deleted, but ... can we save it? Bearian (talk) 22:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I could try to rescue it but my guess it will be fruitless. I've done Heymann-type revamps on articles posed for deletion (for notable subjects) only to see the revamps reverted, like on Laura Mersini-Houghton, back to a problematic article, so I am not so sure it would be worth it to try to improve an article on a (possibly?) marginal subject?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

@Tomwsulcer: Speaking as the only other delete !vote at the moment, I can tell you I would have no reason or inclination personally to revert improvements if you chose to spend your time doing so. I did search for sources myself, but if you can find some good stuff I couldn't for whatever reason I'm also not opposed to withdrawing it. --— Rhododendrites | 03:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, @Rhododendrites:, your open-mindedness is appreciated; what I am saying is that I could spend a half hour or hour trying to fix up this article on Lisa Hammer, and when done, we would all look at the revamp, and all still vote delete. But I am not sure. If an article has a chance, I like to revamp it but it is guesswork and I am trying to use my time productively.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Merge to Mors Syphilitica. I'll also venture an Ignore All Rules keep. This is the sort of person that I would expect a comprehensive encyclopedia to cover. But as an underground film maker, she seems to have escaped notice in the more usual places. At the very least, we should be able to merge some of this article with the band page. The band page is in sad shape, but could be referenced. I found , and about the band. -- Whpq (talk) 15:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Uncertain, changing vote from Delete (above) to Uncertain, I added 5 references but I am still on the fence on this one. I think part of the problem is that she has done many things (actress, director, vocalist, etc) and much of this work is in niche territory, so it is hard for us Wikipedians who don't know the goth/horror world to know what the best sources are? If the article gets deleted, and anybody wants it back (revamped?) write something on my talk page and we could try refloating it.
Weak keep, changing from looking for more references (added to the article); still, not sure about the overall quality of the references, in total, will go with what the closing admin decides. What's interesting still is the high pageview count, averaging 50 pageviews/day (plucked from my struck-out comment). Definitely an interesting person. Less sure about overall notability. If the article stays here in Misplaced Pages, I'll try to revamp it when I get time, but I don't want to work on something that will meet the ax.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

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 result was delete. j⚛e decker 01:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Kyline Alcantara

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

Autobiography, unreferenced claims, seems like a promotion — Ascii002 14:00, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Delete Non notable. No coverage. Clear COI as it's an AUTOBIO. Written like a promotion. Cowlibob (talk) 14:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

tentative delete - It appears to be self written, so it would need an extensive rewrite, but she does have a few acting roles. I'd like to make sure these aren't notable shows in the Philippines. Just because the article was written by an 11 year old doesn't mean she isn't notable. I'd suggest getting some feedback from those familiar with Asian TV before we delete. Bali88 (talk) 04:06, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Delete as promotional bs. –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:33, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 14:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Abid Mahi

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

Non-notable person. No indications that this filmmaker has made an significant impact or received any significant attention for his films. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 13:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Delete Non-notable filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 19:00, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The result was keep. Lankiveil 13:00, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Sonia Noemí

AfDs for this article:

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

No indication of notability, no significant coverage in reliable sources, nothing found via Google. Huon (talk) 23:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Delete. Per nom, fails WP:GNG LADY LOTUS • TALK 03:03, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Keep. She seems to be a pretty big deal in Puerto Rico for the 1960's era. Article just lacks proper sourcing which is a content issue not cause enough for a deletion. Here are several reliable sources:

El Nuevo Día:
MPRnoticias:
National Foundation for Popular Culture:
Primera Hora:
RTVE:
WKAQ-TV:
IMDb:
Amazon:
Rotten Tomatoes:

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 13:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

IMBd - not a reliable source, Rotten Tomatoes - mere mention of work, same with Amazon. LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:22, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Keep - Meets WP:BASIC per , . It's likely that more Spanish-language sources are available that cover the subject. NorthAmerica 11:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Keep - Agreed that Rotten Tomatoes and IMDB are not reliable sources. But El Nuevo Día and Primera Hora certainly are. -- Whpq (talk) 13:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

El Nuevo Día article is about her book more than her. And Primera Hora is again more about her book than her, it does talk about her son but by these sources you could make an article about her book more than keep hers. LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Getting coverage for your book, as an author, would establish notability so I see nothing wrong with the two sources above. I have zero proficiency in Spanish so looking for sources would be a laborious task for me. but in any case, I also dug up which is from 2011 and has nothing to do with the book. -- Whpq (talk) 15:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

The result was delete. j⚛e decker 02:52, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

John Philbin

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

Primary sourced BLP with weak notability claim. Fails WP:ENT (does not have two major roles, North Shore might be significant). Fails WP:GNG (lacks independent reliable sources). SummerPhD (talk) 21:32, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Delete agree with nom, found this maybe reliable source but nothing else, no significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG LADY LOTUS • TALK 03:08, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Delete Unreferenced. I deleted it as a PROD, but it was later disputed. Ronhjones 01:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Delete - He does not have a substantial body of work, nor is there coverage in multiple reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 13:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Delete. Does not appear to meet the GNG. Mice never shop (talk) 00:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Delete - doesn't meet any standards of notability that warrants its retention. Velella 15:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

The result was No consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 06:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Clay Westervelt

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

Apparently non-notable director, fails WP:ARTIST. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker 16:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Keep. While it does fail WP:ARTIST, it just barely passes WP:BASIC, as two published reliable sources in the article mention him in a non-trivial way. --Holdek (talk) 16:27, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:07, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

The result was No consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 06:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Aditi Sajwan

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

Has only one reference, almost all of the information are unreferenced and may not be true. — Ascii002 13:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker 15:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

The result was delete. → Call me Hahc21 20:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Aas Mohammad Khan Abbasi

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

Contested {{prod blp}}. All biographies of living people created after March 18, 2010, must have references. This currently has none. Storkk (talk) 10:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Delete Poorly written AUTOBIO so clear COI with no sources. No indication of notability and no significant coverage. Potentially speedy delete under A7 or G11. Cowlibob (talk) 11:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Delete The one source is without question controlled by the subject. No even marginally independent claim to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

The result was keep. Secret 19:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Micah Garen

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

This article was tagged as possible failing the notability requirement since 2010. I recently proposed deletion, based on WP:ONEEVENT. This proposal was rejected by the article's creator, on the grounds that he "still remembers the event", and that the event has historical importance. That is not my understanding of WP:ONEEVENT - the event may be notable, but that does not mean that a person whose only notability is his participation in the event is notable Brad Dyer (talk) 15:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Delete - Not notable. Only a passing reference here and there. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 17:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment. Putting aside (for now) the question of whether he merits a decent article here, the article that he now has looked until a few minutes ago as if it was lazily "summarized" (i.e. copied and then clumsily abridged) from the page about Garen at fourcornersmedia.net. A quick look showed that this was the "handiwork" of a SPA grandly named "Glosserandparser". I've reverted the addition. (It had only been in the article since 2006.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:52, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Question. Is his contributor page for Granta an RS? It's quite informative. -- Hoary (talk) 09:25, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Keep. No answer to the above question in almost a week. A contributor page is I think often largely the product of the contributor himself; but even if this was so here, Granta (a solid magazine), decided to republish it. And its content looks good. So I'll plump for "keep". -- Hoary (talk) 08:08, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 21:37, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Delete fails the one-event rules.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Keep while the AfD is understandable, given the former article, and I agree that the one-event of his kidnapping and release (which received huge international attention) is arguably the most important event in his journalistic career, there is much more to him which clearly meets the GNG, particularly he is a notable documentary filmmaker working in a dangerous region (the Middle East) who continues to produce notable work. This material was not in the article before, but now is (see 15 sources; over half of them are not about the kidnapping). He is an award-winning photographer; his documentary won a top award. And the kidnapping continues to have ramifications today, specifically touching on the rights of journalists (who often are ill-treated in wartime). His book about the ordeal won

The result was redirect to Lady Jane (film). Discussion shows the article does not meet the notability guidelines, but a redirect to the only film where there is a significant role is sensible. Davewild (talk) 08:41, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Warren Saire

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

In trying to expand this two-sentence stub, it became apparent that this actor probably isn't notable enough for a Wiki article. I couldn't find anything in reliable sources except mentions in lists of credits. Moswento 14:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Keep He does have 14 acting credits on IMDB, several links from Misplaced Pages articles, and a significant part in one fairly well known film, Lady Jane (film). PatGallacher (talk) 14:55, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- 14 acting credits doesn't really seem that many to me, and one significant role isn't a sufficient indication of notability (WP:NACTOR suggests "multiple" such roles might be). Moswento 07:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Keep. Although he hasn't got that many credits, he did have a significant role in Lady Jane, which I think just about qualifies him. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- One significant role isn't a sufficient indication of notability per WP:NACTOR. One decent source might push him to borderline notability, but I haven't found that source yet. Moswento 07:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 07:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Delete per NACTOR and WP:GNG, possibly redirect to Lady Jane (film). One or two roles in significant films doesn't do it, especially when they're not starring ones. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker 16:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Clarityfiend. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 16:40, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Delete or redirect. He's a bit part actor. Szzuk (talk) 16:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The result was delete. Per WP:SOFTDELETE. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Mikhail Skryabin

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

Biography that has no visible verifiable references from reliable sources (IMDB is not a reliable source). Orphan. Contested PROD. Claim of notability (nomination for an award) is not backed up by a reliable source. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 05:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Delete - Not finding significant coverage in reliable sources to qualify an article per WP:BASIC or WP:NACTOR. Sources found thus far consist of passing mentions (e.g. , ). The subject had a leading role in The Stoker (per ), but WP:NACTOR requires "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." NorthAmerica 13:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker 15:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker 16:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

The result was delete. j⚛e decker 15:19, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Shane Taylor

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

BLP has no visible verifiable references from reliable sources. IMDB is not a reliable source. Contested PROD. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 04:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 15:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I tried to find sources about this actor but could find very little and added it to the article. Not very hopeful for his survival at WP. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 22:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment - I can find some interviews, but I'm not sure about the notability of the websites. Here is an article from a tabloid. The others I found are from blog type sites and forums. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 05:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Strong Delete -Being an entertainment historian I have access to data bases that the public does not and upon a search of the subject I have yet to find any information that would validate the subject as being notable enough for a page. The regular searches turn up very little and what is turned up is primarily public edited so we cannot use those in my own opinion as reliable sources.--Canyouhearmenow 12:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The result was delete. SpinningSpark 20:11, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

George Horton (YouTube)

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

Having a viral video does not constitute notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENTERTAINER. Tchaliburton (talk) 19:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Keep. Granted, but this is simply what he is 'best known' for. On that note, would contest that there is a failure of WP:ENTERTAINER due to the fact that there is a substantial fanbase, which in turn owes itself to unique contributions to the field of prank comedy of the channel. There are many other videos on the channel with many views; this is not a one hit wonder. 01:02, 25 June 2014 (GMT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koreanspy12 (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 18:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Strong keep Numerous sources; what appears to have happened is channel has been renamed, and under the previous name, a wikipedia article was created and uncontested - Jesterlads - if the channel merits a wikipedia article, why not the youtuber himself? This article is clearly mainly pertaining to the channel, which seems to be notable, there are hundreds of sources online, most of which mention George. And i know imdb isn't fantastic, but he has apparently appeared on tv. Blondie86 (talk) 22:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker 02:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Delete He's pretty tiny for a youtuber; there are literally hundreds of channels with 3 million views. The news mentions are also nothing more than the blog-style posts these outlets make several dozen times a day when anything gets a few hundred thousand views. JTdale 03:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Delete. Trivial mentions. There's no significant coverage in reliable sources. Citations consist only of embedded videos. There needs to be an actual article about the person. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Delete - fails WP:GNG. To be honest, I'd probably support the deletion of the group/channel as failing WP:ORGDEPTH too. That they had one video that got some coverage in mainstream media does not make them notable. There are plenty of people who have YouTube videos that have since been featured on compilation shows or even "YouTube video of the week" news items. The sites hosting copies of the video really don't constitute coverage at all - they are just hosting a copy of the video and the only mention of the group or the individuals involved comes from the in-video credits - the subjects covering themselves - and from comments members of the group have posted into comments sections under some of the videos. The self-promotion is strong with this one. St★lwart 06:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Delete. Not really notable. Besides, there are other channels with more subscribers that also don't have pages. Besides, his channel already has an article, right here, so this is kind of pointless. -- Matthew - (talk · userpage · contributions) 13:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Delete as non notable youtuber, Fails GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Delete - Video may have received a bit of coverage, but subject himself has not and is not notable. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 18:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The result was delete Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Gerry Skilton

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

Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which evidence the notability of this actor under WP:GNG. I believe some of the statements in the article are false. --j⚛e decker 04:05, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

~~Weak Keep~~ to Delete-- The subject seems to be listed in the IMdB database and is mentioned in the article for the dvd's release announcement here> . However, when you do a research on the various projects listed there are very few of them that list him as being involved. This may be one of those cases where there is more self injected participation than actual participation? I am really on the fence with this one. After reviewing it and trying to verify I can assert that the titles do not exist and the subject does not meet notability standards.--Canyouhearmenow 11:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
- I wasn't very clear. Some of the listed films do not exist, moreover, it is unlikely that he participated in Kentucky Pride before he was born. --j⚛e decker 14:26, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  - You raise a very good point Joe Decker. This is why I said I was on the fence. I know he wasn't in Kentucky Pride for a fact, however, in many cases they could participate in various projects and go uncredited. I think this takes us right back to our original problem which would be notability. IF we cannot source the claims, then we have no other choice but to delete this article.Canyouhearmenow 15:22, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
    - Thanks, and most appreciated. --j⚛e decker 17:09, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Delete - What we have here is a mostly unverifiable mess. About the only thing that can be verified is having a credit in Crocodile Dundee. There is no substantial coverage about this actor that I can find. There is a claim for being known for the Kentucky Pride Film series of the 1990's. I can find no evidence for the existence of such a film series. None whatsoever. There is also the claim of hosting the game show "Imminent Answer" from the 70's 80's and 90's. For such a long running show, again, I can find no evidence even for its existence. This article fails one of Misplaced Pages's most fundamental policies of verifiability. I suspect that much of this article is actually made up. -- Whpq (talk) 16:22, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Delete Low level actor, who had a variety of very-minor roles and roles in extremely minor and unverifiable films.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The result was delete. Deletion discussions are not a vote count, and none of the single-purpose accounts below made anything resembling a policy-based argument for the subject's notability. §FreeRangeFrog 06:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Jack Spring (Film Director)

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

Does not appear to pass WP:FILMMAKER, no iMDB entry. An article may be appropriate once this person meets notability, but currently is WP:TOOSOON. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 01:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Delete per nom. He's gotten a bit of notice and a short film review, which is pretty impressive for a teenager (or most other people), but not sufficient for either FILMMAKER or GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Delete - Other than these 2 sources - I can't find anything else which clearly means he's not notable yet, Good luck for the future tho. –Davey2010 • (talk) 12:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Keep Being a film maker from the North of England myself I can assure you that this kid is pretty big already. He is certainly known across London and I know him from up here in Gateshead. I would say he definitely classes as notable. MightyMariner1 (talk) 14:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

No one's personal opinion counts as a marker of notability. Cowlibob (talk) 16:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Keep Being a film maker from the North of England myself I can assure you that this kid is pretty big already. He is certainly known across London and I know him from up here in Gateshead. I would say he definitely classes as notable. MightyMariner1 (talk) 14:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Crossed out duplicate comment. This won't be decided by popular vote, so don't duplicate your comments. Cowlibob (talk) 16:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Keep Just asked one of my film maker buddies in Seattle if he has heard of Jack Spring. He has certainly heard of him as being one of the London film industries best prospects. He has a good backing from the British Film Institute who have funded a host of his films. JonnyGrim (talk) 14:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)— JonnyGrim (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Your friend from Seattle's opinion doesn't count towards notability. Can't help but note that you created your account after this Afd. Suspected closeness to subject. Cowlibob (talk) 16:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Keep His school Greenshaw High School note him as a famous alumni and he is plastered all over their website as a famous alumni.— Katie327 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 11:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC).

Katie327 could you sign your comment above so everyone knows who said what? This doesn't count towards notability. Besides this was added to the Greenshaw page by JonnyGrim and Katie327 anyway with no independent sources to support. Katie's account was also created after the start of this Afd. Suspected closeness to the subject. Cowlibob (talk) 16:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Keep The things Jack Spring seems to have done already - at 17! Won a wealth of awards and I would feel we would be foolish to delete such a page seeing as this guy seems near certain to be notable (if you feel he already isn't!) Sbutcher02 (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)— Sbutcher02 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

We can't keep a page based on future notability. Same as JonnyGrim and Katie327 created account after this Afd. Suspected closeness to subject. Cowlibob (talk) 16:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Notability on Misplaced Pages, as measured by the existence of substantive coverage in reliable sources, has to already exist for a person to qualify for an article — "the things he's done already at 17" don't demonstrate notability yet if they haven't been covered in real reliable sources yet. Bearcat (talk) 17:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Delete Non notable. Minimal local coverage, winning minor awards. Possible COI issue as article creator and contributors seem close to the subject. Misplaced Pages is not for promoting your friends. Maybe he'll become notable in the future but he's not right now. Cowlibob (talk) 16:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Delete; probable conflict of interest article about a person with no properly referenced evidence of notability as of today. I can loosely agree with some of his friends above that he probably will eventually become notable enough for a Misplaced Pages article if he keeps it up — but the time for that article is when he's actually accomplished something that gets him past WP:CREATIVE, not right now. Bearcat (talk) 17:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Delete Your school calling you a "notable alumni" does not make you notable. Someone from your general area hearing of you does not make you notable. The "he is a good prospect" line to me yells "this is too soon". We do not make articles on people who might make it good in the future.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog 06:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Kash Gauni

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

Does not pass GNG or WP:CREATIVE notability guidelines. Claim to fame is a Non-notable film. Sources to back up this include IMDB, Youtube, and other Wikis which is 100% not appropriate. Submission originally made to AFC where it was declined multiple times for lack of notability . In short this submission is not appropriate for mainspace as indicated by 2 successful A7 speedy deletions previously in addition to the poor quality of this submission. Prod was turned down by the advocate for this article who seems to have a single minded fascination with the subject to the point that I have to wonder if a conflict of interest may exist between the editor and the subject. Hasteur (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 15:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 15:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 15:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Delete - IT guy turned script writer and actor. His first feature film primiered recently, but I fail to find anything that makes subject meet WP:GNG. Sam Sailor 15:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Delete I don't see any notability here, and have no problem with deletion of this article. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Delete there was only ever a faint hope at WP:AFC. This permalink shows my review of the article as it stood then. One day the person may be notable, just not yet. Fiddle Faddle 16:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Do Not Delete Gauni story is not as it is been seen behind a keyboard. It has to be told to help it identify as notable person. It not any obsession as one of you suggest's neither any conflict of interest as other may say. Totally unfounded behind some text. It's determination to have collective intelligence applied. My assertion stands — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanVanKant (talk • contribs) 17:09, 24 June 2014‎— DanVanKant (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete - as I stated on my talk page, while communicating with the article creator, the article subject fails the golden rule - apart from a few youtube interviews, there are pretty much no relevant results if you search for the name on Google. This person, with the current secondary sources available, is just not notable enough for a Misplaced Pages article. I fail to understand why it was recreated after so many other editors reached this conclusion too, and the page creator was aware of this. Add this to the general poor (potentially un-encyclopedic) quality of the article, and I endorse its deletion. --BZTMPS ★ · (talk? contribs?) 18:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
~~Do Not Delete~~ - that's exactly my point. Your points of ref are same searches on Internet where as there is more word of mouth notable references. It has taken me consistent effort to keep convincing so many editors but "hard work" pays off. Just to show that getting subjective does not derive your end results. Once can shrink and ref and get "Gauni" a start. Once they see even a one line mention others will build on it. How many people can be a firefighter, write books, make films and give everything away. That is notable and noble itself DanVanKant (talk) 18:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)DanVanKantDanVanKant (talk) 18:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
~~Do Not Delete~~ This is where my challenge has been. Gauni is the first ethnic guy actually to achieve that and Rock Paper Dice Enter is the first commercially released 100% Canadian feature film of suspense thriller genre from City of Edmonton to released worldwide this is as confirmed by Global news live yesterday. My challenge has been how do we build on all that information. It is difficult to share all this to editors behind a keyboard.I see this as no diff than a civil rights movement in 60's or of LGBT acceptance. Canadian mainstream cinema started to change in 2014. its is landmarkDanVanKant (talk) 19:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)DavVanKantDanVanKant (talk) 19:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

DanVanKant This is not a vote. Attempting to make it look like there is multiple people voting for keeping will only unite the consensus against keeping. Do not attempt to vote any more. You may elaborate your viewpoint by making Comment remarks, but no more keeps. Hasteur (talk) 19:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Hasteur I am sorry that was not the intent. but noted. Trust me I have taken every advice from Editors and you have see the sincerity behind it DanVanKant (talk) 19:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)DanVanKantDanVanKant (talk) 19:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

CommentI hope this is right way of defense. I am getting advise from very cool Editors. So lets do this;

1. For "Gauni" I have been constantly seeking right reference. Lately his profile has started showing up in public there is There is hardly any reference of him being ethnic. There are two remarkable first's here - First Brown Volunteer Brown Firefighter for City of Brampton, there is reference about it with the City and Mayor's speeches but no way to present.Hence with the film itself Rock Paper Dice Enter the Mayor, Minister of Culture and The Senator from Ottawa were present on opening night of film Rock Paper Dice Enter. How many times one sees that on a opening night of film. The reason they were there because Gauni has that notability of what he is doing for community. This has been in news and when I had references from Senate of Canada making that clear mention and one Editor thought of it as it was with poor intent 2. For "Gauni" My other right references are his Bibliography. The book is part of Five star good read. Harper Collins also has references of more stuff coming out soon but hard to present 3. For "Gauni" My other right references are his volunteer work. Part of his Heart and Stroke is public but the other part I cannot reference back is part "Million Dollar" pledge team There are no clever reference here. That is "correct" because I am presenting what is in public domain. I have no accessibility to all other references to be presented here but I have sincerely tried to connect dots I rest the case on what is Misplaced Pages mandate and respect itDanVanKant (talk) 20:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)DanVanKantDanVanKant (talk) 20:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Delete per nom. This nomination is pretty well grounded in policy, and I agree with every point made. ♥ Solarra ♥ ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 04:29, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Delete No evidence of notability has been provided. This person may be talented, and may become notable in the future. If so, that will be the time to write a Misplaced Pages biography. Cullen Let's discuss it 03:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Delete Agree with nom. Cowlibob (talk) 10:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker 23:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Ján Husár

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

An article based on unreliable sources, mostly forums, blogs, and IMDB. The subject of the article doesn't seem to be notable enough. Λeternus 07:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Λeternus 07:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Λeternus 07:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Λeternus 07:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, §FreeRangeFrog 06:12, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 06:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

The result was delete. j⚛e decker 02:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Angela Barlow

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

7 year old basically unsourced WP:BLP for an actress who seems to lack the necessary notability to have her own article. According to Google, she mainly plays smallish roles in single episodes of TV series, nothing major or lasting. Her plays seem also to have received only minimal attention . The middle two sentences of the article at the moment (about "snarf" and "mashive") seem to be 5-year old vandalism.... Fram (talk) 15:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Delete A lack of substantial coverage of her or her work. Her roles on TV have generally been small or medium-sized, rather than leading or well-known. She seems quite popular in Jane Austen circles, and crops up a lot in their newsletters and websites, but not in reliable sources. Lack of reviews of her stage work (although shows at e.g. Edinburgh Festival Fringe can attract a lot of reviews). It's possible her older, pre-internet-era work might make her notable despite appearances to the contrary, but at the moment I'm not seeing anything. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:21, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Delete as per nom and Colapeninsula. Checked 10 SERP pages on "web" mode, didn't find anything to establish notability, nothing in "news" mode for google.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica 04:46, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Shafi (actor)

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

No sourcing; no notability established. Article appears to have been created by the subject themselves in violation of WP:COI. McDoob AU93 14:23, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Delete AUTOBIO and therefore COI. Non-notable. Created for self promotion. A side note, the article creator's userpage,User:Actorshafi, seems to also redirect to this article. Cowlibob (talk) 14:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Weak keep The article seems to give assertions to the subject passing WP:ENT #1 and there seem to be sources available. . Short COI articles can be cleaned up. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 10:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr 01:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 07:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Kryštof Hádek

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

Blatant promotional tone. Non-notable subject. Popcornduff (talk) 13:40, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Delete, blatantly promotional. Additionally, no significant references; one broken link, the other is not English. The actor may be notable but the article does not establish this. I think this page is unsalvagable but wouldn't object to it being recreated from scratch with citations and an establishment of notability. --Yamla (talk) 13:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: Since the time I registered my vote, a number of citations have been added to the page, including one showing the actor was indeed nominated for the Czech Lion. Additionally, the page has been substantially cleaned up. I'm leaving my initial vote unedited at the moment, but I expect the closing admin to take these changes into account and put little to no stock in my vote from earlier today. --Yamla (talk) 22:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Keep. The subject is clearly notable, he starred in notable films and won an award for it. It's completely irrelevant what language sources are written in. I've removed some of the promotional / unclear stuff. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 14:23, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Keep, this actor seems to have been nominated for several prestigious awards, and as Filelakeshoe has removed all promotional content, there is no need for this article to be deleted.Staglit (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Keep Won Czech Lion for supporting actor, the Czech equivalent of an Oscar or BAFTA; and meeting WP:NACTOR with multiple major roles in notable works, e.g. 3 Seasons in Hell, Dark Blue World, Raw (TV series). Coverage of Czech film in English language sources isn't great, but Czech sources are perfectly valid. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Keep: Meets the WP:NACTOR criteria with the Best Actor award. AllyD (talk) 18:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Keep, notable and award winning actor, well known in the Czech Republic. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Keep - Won a major award. Narutolovehinata5 04:05, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The result was delete. (soft) slakr 01:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Alfonso Perugini

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

Insufficient notability for WP:ARTIST. Apparently the autobiography of a sockpuppeteer. Aside: the same material has been deleted a remarkable five times on it.wiki as unambiguous promotion. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Delete If the italians deleted the page maybe we should too. https://it.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Alfonso_Perugini&action=edit&redlink=1 Gregkaye (talk) 16:56, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Sachi Matsumoto

AfDs for this article:

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

Recreated after being deleted in 2012 and not being restored after a deletion review, this article still lacks two sources, nor was I able to find two sources, which would evidence notability under WP:GNG. Additional sources welcome. j⚛e decker 03:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Delete This is a case where the person fails per WP:ENTERTAINER as there is no major roles done, also per WP:GNG. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Keep Passes WP:ENTERTAINER #1 just fine. Was one of the main cast members in Penguin no Mondai which has over 250 episodes made. They are listed as being in all the television shows. shows all major roles in bold, so they've done others as well. Dream Focus 11:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Dream those are both from the encyclopedia portion of ANN with has proved to be user edited and unreliable. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- There is no doubting this person was in a notable show that had over 250 episodes, they a main cast member in it. He was also a main character in Hikarian, which had over two hundred episodes. Sounds like some major roles to me. Dream Focus 03:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

While ANN's encyclopedia is not a reliable source, it can be used to verify (though not source) if a voice actor has had several major roles. Narutolovehinata5 02:26, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Keep - I'm very much aware that I originally !voted delete in the original AfD, but since then I learned that she voiced Link in a few games. Yes, Link is well-known for not exactly being talkative, but still, a major character such as Link, isn't that enough to pass WP:ENTERTAINER? Narutolovehinata5 02:26, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Well no, voicing a character that historically rarely, if ever speaks doesn't seem like a very good justification for making a special case of ignoring the root of the GNG. Sources are still paramount, and none of the roles listed seem like candidates for a strong likelihood of reliable sources and wide coverage. The article, after two AFD's still only has two sources and one of them can't be used to ascertain notability.SephyTheThird (talk) 00:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Delete - Notability of voice actors is not determined by how many series they have been in, how big those series are or how famous those series are. It's determined by the same thing as every other article - wide coverage in third party reliable sources, none of which are demonstrated by this article to a reasonable degree. The Entertainer sub section is being used as an catch all excuse for articles that don't demonstrate notability without dealing with these core issues and it needs to stop. It's irrelevant how many episodes a show is if the voice provider only has a few lines here and there. If the provision of voices for individual roles is significant than it will be covered in sources suitable. Clearly, in this case it isn't and it should be subject to the same rules as any other page. SephyTheThird (talk) 00:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Delete. In the absence of any reliable third-party sourcing or in-depth coverage, it's hard to see how the basic notability criteria have been satisfied here. --DAJF (talk) 07:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr 02:20, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 07:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

The result was delete. Secret 19:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Ichitarō Ai

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

Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which evidence the notability of this voice actor under WP:GNG. Additional sources welcomed. j⚛e decker 03:39, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 04:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Delete. Article is supported only by the subject's blog page and a profile on ANN, so notability has not been established at this point. --DAJF (talk) 07:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 06:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Calathan (talk) 17:27, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Delete Fails WP:ENT sources used are also not enough. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The result was delete. j⚛e decker 02:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Jessica Sara

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

Subject only had 1 to 3 episode-long guest appearances, very small film roles, and no significant coverage in any entertainment news/magazines articles or websites. While she did win a Young Artist Award for a guest role, that alone is not enough to merit notability (not everyone who wins that award has an article here) and there is no indication she has plans to return to acting anytime soon. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 00:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 June 23. —cyberbot I _Online 00:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Child actress who doesn't achieve WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Delete Not notable. Lack of in-depth media coverage found in Google search (or in article). Roles were generally supporting/guest (note that the "co-starring" role in Always Greener wasn't the Australian show but an obscure 2001 thing that IMDb has almost no info about), and nothing that could be called innovative, cult, or iconic. Has not acted for several years, so she's unlikely to become more famous or get more coverage in the near future. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Delete Former child actresses need to have achieved large scale notability to keep the articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:16, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Sander van der Poel

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

A contributor to the Dutch-language soundtracks for Japanese TV series. There's something delightfully obscure about this; but, well, he's obscure. The article has no independent sourcing. There's a link to an article on him in nl:Misplaced Pages, but that too has no independent sourcing. I googled and found Misplaced Pages scrapes, lists (sans commentary) of what he's appeared in, and not much more. His (very flash) website suggests that he's tried a variety of things, but the web doesn't seem to present much coverage of them. Hoary (talk) 02:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 02:34, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Hoary (talk) 02:38, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Delete Non-notable dub-only voice actor. Bensci54 (talk) 06:02, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Delete Dante Basco actually played Zuko in the series, I do not see any notability here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- Knowledgekid87, I understand from the article on him that Dante Basco did the voice for Zuko in English (and that this is his major claim to fame). We're told that Sander van der Poel did the same for Dutch. I don't see why doing a job in one (Germanic) language is necessarily a greater or lesser achievement than doing it in another; if SvdP's achievements had been at all discussed, he might well merit an article, just as Dante Basco does. ¶ Oh, hang on a moment: the sole assertion in the article on Basco for which an independent source is provided is He attended Orange County High School of the Arts. Uhhh. ¶ Ah well, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. -- Hoary (talk) 00:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  - Comment - Dante's job is more notable because English is both the original language of the series and the language the series is most well known in. - Bensci54 (talk) 03:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
    - Yes, sorry, I only glanced at the article, noticed 降卋神通 and so forth, and assumed it was east Asian. Basco's was indeed the original voice. (Or so the article on him tells us. Its writers don't deign to provide any evidence.) -- Hoary (talk) 06:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
      - It clearly was Brasco, he was listed in the show's credits.--67.68.160.163 (talk) 19:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Delete unless more can be found, I did find an unreliable source with an interesting interview with him in Dutch at , but I don't see coverage reaching WP:GNG yet. Additional sources welcome, as always. --j⚛e decker 05:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

The result was keep. → Call me Hahc21 04:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Karen Dyer

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

A working actress but not quite notable per WP:ENTERTAINER, WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. Binksternet (talk) 16:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Delete - I was not able to find any reliable sources that explore the subject in depth whatsoever. Fails WP:BASIC.- Mr X 17:20, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Keep. There are references but it took some hunting, in places like Backstage Magazine. Also she is a motion capture actress; not sure what this is about but maybe it will be more common in future. Also she was a featured speaker at one of those comic cons (?); think her biggest role was the Resident Evil stuff, also she is in a videogame, probably gets lots of attention that way.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Strong Keep. Very notable actress and voice actress. Boaxy (talk) 08:42, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 01:08, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Keep per Tomwsulcer's additions. –Davey2010 • (talk) 06:20, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 08:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Catherine Taber

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

Interviews are primary sources. To satisfy the notability requirement of WP:BASIC, in-depth coverage must be seen in WP:SECONDARY sources. Binksternet (talk) 05:47, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Keep: The nominator seems to quickly want this article deleted instead of letting other users find more sources on this actress and lacking patience. - FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 06:07, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I would be happy to see this biography improved to the point of it meeting Misplaced Pages's guidelines. Your 'keep' vote has no policy basis. Binksternet (talk) 15:57, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Delete No rush seems to be done here; I agree with the nominator that BASIC hasn't been satisfied for what looks like a general voice actress. Nate • (chatter) 16:51, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Delete on the lack of significant coverage in independent secondary sources. To the nom, interviews are not always primary sources - a person being interviewed not only reiterating their past but contemplating it can be a secondary source. But it is not a independent source which is a requirement as well for notability, and that's not shown here. --MASEM (t) 18:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Keep It says in the article clearly Star Wars: The Clone Wars (TV series) (2008-2014) – Padmé Amidala. She played a major character on a notable show for six years. That and her other work seem to clearly pass WP:ENTERTAINER. Dream Focus 22:50, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Keep, covered in reliable sources. I have added some to the article. Antrocent (♫♬) 08:46, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- Of those added: About.com is not a reliable source (it's an SPS), the Variety article does not give "significant coverage" as required by WP:N, and while the interview is good, it again is an issue with independence of information (as I've described above). --MASEM (t) 17:56, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
  - Wired magazine did a long interview with her. And she is interviews for a television interview at . But her notable roles make her pass WP:ENTERTAINER easily so that's all that matters. Dream Focus 21:06, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
    - Interviews are not sufficient sources as they are not independent (even if they are secondary). And I disagree that she meets the "multiple significant roles" that ENT #1 requires (ignoring the present discussion at WP:BIO about whether voice actors should be included in that.) Her resume only boost two standout roles, Amadla in the Clone Wars works, and FF12; the rest are a smattering of parts. --MASEM (t) 23:40, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
      - There is no difference from someone writing about someone or interviewing them and writing about that. They are notable enough to get coverage. And how many standout roles do you think someone needs? Dream Focus 23:52, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Keep Sources do not rise to WP:GNG, but do not need to, as we can verify she meets WP:ENTERTAINER --Rob (talk) 03:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Keep Interviews may not be always reliable for some things, but they are worth something. As long as they are with an organization that chooses to interview people, instead of just interviewing everyone, the interview is worth noting. It is a lazy-mans way of writing an indepth article, but they are indepth. She clearly passes the multiple significant roles criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Keep She is voicing Leia in Star Wars Detours after voicing Amidala on Star Wars: The Clone Wars for its six seasons, sources found that are independent of the interview. She is also the voice of main character Penelo in Final Fantasy XII. -AngusWOOF (talk) 02:09, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz 22:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Keep per WP:ENTERTAINER. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Keep per WP:HEY - there are now plenty of sources to show she passes the basic test of notability. Bearian (talk) 21:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Keep. Surprising improvements have been made to the article, with editors finding good sources that I could not. I'm the nominator but I'm changing my vote. Binksternet (talk) 23:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

The result was keep. ‑Scottywong | chat _ 02:11, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Chris Edgerly

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

Notability not shown via WP:SECONDARY sources giving in-depth coverage to satisfy WP:BASIC. Binksternet (talk) 05:41, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Delete No evidence of notability provided in the article, and I wasn't able to find any significant coverage in reliable sources. Lots of unreliable blog, social media and user submitted coverage, though. Cullen Let's discuss it 05:47, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Keep: The nominator seems to quickly want this article deleted instead of letting other users find more sources on this actor and lacking patience. - FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 06:26, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I would be happy to see this biography improved to the point of it meeting Misplaced Pages's guidelines. Your 'keep' vote has no policy basis. Binksternet (talk) 15:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Keep Clearly passes WP:ENTERTAINER for having notable roles in notable works, such as playing Benny, one of the two main characters, in Top Cat: The Movie. Dream Focus 02:35, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Keep per WP:ENTERTAINER. VMS Mosaic (talk) 12:24, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Delete GNG trumps entertainer. The sources provided do not show a passing of GNG. I think we need to be cautious to assume that notability will come as quickly to voice actors as to live actors. I know some will find this unfair, but the truth is that in general voice actors just don't get as much coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:20, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Comment - I found some interviews that might be helpful. See here and here. I also found an article on Highbeam, but I'm not quite sure it's him. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 15:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 05:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Keep - Passes point #1 of WP:ENTERTAINER. NorthAmerica 21:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

The result was delete. As a note unrelated to the close, please note that the biography is a copyvio, as the text of the biographical information was present in IMDB as early as November 2005, according to the Wayback Machine. j⚛e decker 05:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Heather Hogan

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

Notability not shown with any sources, let alone the WP:SECONDARY ones required by WP:BASIC. Binksternet (talk) 05:28, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Keep: The nominator seems to quickly want this article deleted instead of letting other users find more sources on this actress and lacking patience. - FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 06:28, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I would be happy to see this biography improved to the point of it meeting Misplaced Pages's guidelines. Your 'keep' vote has no policy basis. Binksternet (talk) 15:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Delete: As the nom indicates there is nothing to suggest notability here and no sourcing. Then there is the troubling fact that Heather Hogan#Bio is a carbon copy of the mini-bio at IMDb and that Heather Hogan#Filmography, aside from part of "Other notes", replicats the IMDb "Actress" filmography . The likely copyvio of the bio is not good. I say "likely" since we don't know exatly when IMDb's section went up, but it's better to err on the side of caution that we didn't get there first. And yes, a filmography is going to look similar, but the near replication of the IMDb list in full and the copyvio makes more than a simple list suspect. - J Greb (talk) 15:45, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

KEEP Clearly passes WP:ENTERTAINER for having significant roles in notable things. Ducky is a main character in the Land Before Time films he did, plus other things stand out if you look at his bio. Dream Focus 02:36, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- You mean the section that is going to get turfed as COPYVIO? - J Greb (talk) 06:26, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
  - We're here to discuss the notability of the person for an article, not the article's content. I don't see it as a copyvio at all. The information was changed. You compile a list like this anywhere, listing the year, the series, and their roll in it, it'll look similar to other list. Dream Focus 06:50, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
    - Points of clarification: 1) The "Bio" section is a direct lift from IMDb. It goes even if the filmography stays. 2) While the filmography, name, and profession of "Actress" can be supported from the show and film credits, nothing else has any supporting information aside from the text copied from IMDb. And that assuming IMDb is correct. 3) An AfD can look at the totality of an article, not just the points the nom raises. If there are additional content or policy issues, they get dealt with.
      
      Now, are there other sources for that information, or is it going to get pulled via BLP at the same time the copyvio gets yanked? If the non-list section goes, is the list of credits sufficient to meet all relevant Notability standards? At this point, without the issues other than Notability being fixed, the Article content amounts to:
      
        "Heather Hogan is a voice actress who took over the role of Ducky, one of the main characters in animated film franchise The Land Before Time,
        for the second, third, and fourth installments. She has also voiced secondary or minor characters in a few animated films and televisions series
        while concentrating on voice work in the video game industry."
      
      Which makes for a slim article at best, even with the full filmography. - J Greb (talk) 07:53, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
      - It would just be redone in a different way. The size of the article is not relevant anyway. The information is confirmed in the credits of the things she has been part of. She also list things on her official website Dream Focus 10:41, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Note, if the list was a direct copy it'd have the same information. Here she is listed as being in Lunar: Silver Star Harmony in 2010, but no mention of that there. Instead IMDb list her doing Lunar: Silver Star Story Touch in 2012. Her website resume doesn't list either of these, she not considering it notable enough to mention at all apparently. That and other differences convince me it is not a copy violation. Also I checked the history, and the list as it is now was added over time starting in February of 2006 and just bits and pieces added over time. Dream Focus 10:54, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Keep per WP:ENTERTAINER. VMS Mosaic (talk) 12:27, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz 22:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Delete - if we want to be anywhere near consistent, this unsourced BLP must be deleted. Bearian (talk) 21:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Delete as per @Bearian:, searched 11 SERP pages, not much there, although possible problems could be that there are different Heather Hogans (writer, etc). I am willing to change my vote based on new information but at present I do not think this subject meets the GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:51, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The result was delete. ‑Scottywong | prattle _ 01:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Courtenay Taylor

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

Notability is not established by way of WP:SECONDARY sources. Instead, there are primary sources and interviews. I looked for secondary sources and found nothing. Binksternet (talk) 05:17, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Keep: The nominator seems to quickly want this article deleted instead of letting other users find more sources on this actress and lacking patience. - FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 06:03, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I would be happy to see this biography improved to the point of it meeting Misplaced Pages's guidelines. Your 'keep' vote has no policy basis. Binksternet (talk) 15:57, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Keep because WP:BEFORE was obviously not done given that this nominator also AfDed at the same time one of the very top and most notable English anime voice artists, Johnny Yong Bosch. VMS Mosaic (talk) 22:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Would you like to add a policy-based reason for your 'keep' vote? Basing your vote on a supposed violation of BEFORE does not count here. You should know I spent an half hour looking through Google, Google Books and Google News for supporting references that discuss Taylor, and I found nothing but interviews and primary sources. Binksternet (talk) 21:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Would love to say keep since she has a number of prominent gaming roles but Binksternet is right that there is not a single real source on the page. I suspect there are secondary sources about her in the gaming press, although I'm too new to know which of those would be considered reliable JQ Esteem (talk) 20:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 04:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker 16:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Delete, considering neither of the 'Keep' votes give any policy based reason and the article has been in existence for almost 10 years without any proper sourcing being found. I can't see anything online about her apart from some fan forum comments and an occasional feature on a fan website. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Sionk (talk) 17:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica 02:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Ronnie Letham

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

Created by a verified sock noted for hoaxes, this might not be one, as there are two obituaries which appear to reliably verify his existence. I'm not sure that that rises, however, to notability, and is it completely insane that I'm starting to wonder about the obits? Perhaps. j⚛e decker 18:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5 and WP:EVADE. The other editors of the article have not added substantial content.- MrX 19:15, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- You appear to be correct. --j⚛e decker 19:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- I also agree. Arfæst Ealdwrítere (talk) 23:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Comment - I'm not too solid on this one to make a firm judgment at the moment, but his IMDb page shows that he has a decent filmography about him in terms of numbers. The most important role I'm seeing, however, is on the short-lived Atletico Partick. But he is a real guy with some real roles. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 19:17, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- Comment I'm slightly more convinced by that he exists than by IMDB, I've at least one memorable hoax unmasking where content had gotten introduced into IMDB. (That one was funnier.) In any case, yes, I think that an actor by that name exists. --j⚛e decker 19:30, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  - Comment - IMDB is not considered to be a reliable source as it comprises information which is user submitted. Arfæst Ealdwrítere (talk) 23:34, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
    - Comment: Precisely: WP:RS/IMDB. --j⚛e decker 06:18, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment This isn't a hoax per this, this and this. I'm not going to add the refs until the block/evade issue is resolved but I don't think that it qualifies under G5 as the page was created on March 7 while AFAICT the block occurred later. Philg88 06:14, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Comment I'm not sure I agree as a matter of textual interpretation, G5 refers to blocked users, not blocked accounts, and many of this user's socks, which have been confirmed by CU, have been indef blocked for 3+ years. However, there may be a precedent on this point that I am unaware of. --j⚛e decker 06:20, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
  - Comment' I have temporarily pulled the G5 tag while we turn to notability, etc. I do agree that some of the material is true, as I've stated above, IMDB didn't convince me, but I doubt the Mirror report is fabricated. --j⚛e decker 06:27, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
    - Comment Good call. I'm not sure how the sock issue will turn out but I'm going to collect some more references if I can find them and see whether notability can be established. Philg88 08:13, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Keep ~~Comment~~ without prejudice to the block/sock issue I believe Letham ~~probably~~ passes individual/actor notability based on the existing article reference to The Scotsman and the following:
"Obituary: Ronnie Letham". Herald Scotland. 9 May 2008. Retrieved 21 June 2014.

Reliable source, 330 word obituary.

"Letham, Ronnie, 1949-2008, actor and student at Jordanhill College of Education, Glasgow". University of Strathclyde Archives. Retrieved 21 June 2014.

Reliable source, 81 word vignette.

"Theatre: A hotel from Hell: Richard Loup-Nolan on new productions in Glasgow and Edinburgh". The Independent. 18 May 1994. Retrieved 21 June 2014.

Reliable source, passing mention in theatre review.

There are also multiple mentions of him in a Google Book search as a cast member, while News has seven mentions.

In summary, three strong references and, per actor notability guideline, confirmation of significant roles in multiple notable television shows and stage performances. Philg88 08:52, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 04:06, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 14:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Keep Just about meets WP:GNG: there's the articles in the Scotsman and Herald plus other shorter mentions. Google Books throws up several sources in snippet view, including a Spectator review of a play he directed, Joyce McMillan's book about the Traverse Theatre, and several other critical notices. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:01, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 02:40, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Bridget Hoffman

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

Very poorly sourced biography, with no in-depth WP:SECONDARY sources to support it. Binksternet (talk) 18:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Keep, notable voice actor, sucky article, should be reduced to stub. BTVA can be used to expand on references. -AngusWOOF (talk) 20:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

It looks like you are referring to this source when you say BTVA. To me, it looks like BTVA has almost no coverage of Hoffman, so it does not establish notability. It says she exists, that she has performed in some productions. What we're trying to do is find WP:SECONDARY sources that give in-depth coverage. Binksternet (talk) 21:54, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Keep - Appears to be well sourced and is WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:54, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Can you list the secondary sources which you have determined to satisfy WP:GNG? Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 03:15, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but it was the nominator's job to do WP:BEFORE, not mine. Please check the current secondary source refs in the article which could all have been found if WP:BEFORE had been done. Given that you also nominated Johnny Yong Bosch, it is extremely obvious you did not even attempt WP:BEFORE. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but the BEFORE requirement was fulfilled, contrary to your assertion. If you continue to base your 'keep' vote on my notional misbehavior then it will not carry any weight. A 'keep' vote should specify some facts that establish notability. Binksternet (talk) 00:24, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

My keep was based on the 34 references which the article has. At least some of them actually discuss her performance as a voice actor. Somebody else did the work required by WP:BEFORE prior to my keep which is why I said it was well sourced. I would have thought that was obvious. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker 00:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Weak delete, clearly a hard-working voice actor, worked with lots of top people. Perusing the numerous "references" that are currently in the article, I did not find ones that I thought were reliable, detached, which covered the subject in-depth. I searched google for 10 SERP pages on "web" setting (not news) did not find much. What there are, at present, is lots of mentions in the "references", but I am not sure that adds up to meet the GNG standard. So, essentially, the article is an overworked resume or CV, not a real encyclopedic article. I may change my vote if the non-references are removed and suitable ones found (maybe past the 10 SERP pages?) but for now, unfortunately, I vote weak delete as per Binksternet.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the process you describe corresponds well with the process I undertook, except that I also looked for Google News and Google Books results, and I searched under the screen credit names Ruby Marlowe, Serena Kolb and Tessa Ariel. I agree that the article as we see it today is an extended list of appearances, lacking an in-depth biographical piece. Binksternet (talk) 03:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Not all the articles that cover her in detail are available online. The news review of her theatre work and the MSU Alumni ones point to biographical articles. The LA Times article covers that she worked as a car model/narrator and leads to the Time Trackers movie. Several of the Ah My Goddess movie reviews describe her performance as the title character Belldandy in the film. If that needs to be detailed better than I will add that to the bio. Many of the other credits prove existence and participation as starring characters in notable anime shows. The disadvantage she has compared to other voice actors is that she doesn't attend anime conventions for that cult personality popularity, although she does attend voiceover seminars as a panelist. -AngusWOOF (talk) 06:08, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

The anime reviews, which do come from reliable sources, do describe their critiques of Hoffman's dubbing performance in the series. Please do not assume everything is just SERP fishing; she does have significant voice and directing roles in notable anime titles, and those are more notable than most of her live-action work like her connections with Raimi / Becker. -AngusWOOF (talk) 08:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Keep - well-cited, meets WP:ENTERTAINER, and Hoffman has done significant acting and directing roles. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:31, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Keep Passes WP:ENTERTAINER with major roles done and the sources to show for it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Speedy Keep - AngusWoof has a done a great job in filling this article out recently. Rarely for an voice actor involved in anime, the article goes beyond a simple cast list and makes use of a range of sources both inside, and outside of the one specific field she is associated with. While the nomination of the page may have made sense at the time the, current state of the page clearly doesn't suffer from the issues listed in the nomination.SephyTheThird (talk) 11:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:03, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

The result was Delete. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 16:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Alex Gilbert

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable cinematographer. Almost none of the references are independent and the story of meeting his parents is covered by WP:BLP1E. Cinematographers can be notable (see Category:New Zealand cinematographers) but this is judged by independent references and awards; these people also tend to be late-career professionals, not three years in. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:23, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment: I see links to a book have been added. The best URL for this is https://itunes.apple.com/nz/book/my-russian-side/id857509909?mt=11 which makes it clear that it's self published. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Keep: Notablity is not only only because of him being a cinematographer. In addition, he is equally if not more notable because of his origin as a Russian boy adopted by a New Zealand family and how his story attracted public attention at length and led to serious discussion about adoptions and search for one's origins. It became subject of an auto-documentary broadcast on NZ media as well and helped others start a quest to find their own birth parents. Keep. werldwayd (talk) 20:33, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Comment Clearly another attempt at self-promotion which, IMO, violates COI. Multiple citations give the impression of WP:N. Take out the cites which fail RS and those which are self-published and the remainder seems trivial on the whole. This person may be slightly interesting, but that does not equal notable (in the general, not wiki, sense at least). DerbyCountyinNZ 08:15, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- I've removed the most obvious RS failures (Twitter and Facebook and IMDB when used as a biographical source). I suspect there are more...DerbyCountyinNZ 08:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Delete per nom, WP:BLP1E and fails WP:GNG. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 05:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Delete As I noted above no indication of sufficient notability from multiple independent and reliable sources. DerbyCountyinNZ 10:48, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Keep As I see there is a lot of notability on this article. I have no idea why this was nominated for deletion when several admins who have been editing articles for years have been editing this page since it was made. There are notable sources such as 'http://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=11232549' ,'http://tvnz.co.nz/sunday/s2014-ep1-video-5821764' , 'https://www.facebook.com/SundayTVNZ/posts/802276326449214?stream_ref=10-title=Sunday' , 'http://tvnz.co.nz/sunday-news/alex-gilbert-my-journey-home-russia-5820767' and 'http://search.aucklandlibraries.govt.nz/?q=Alex%20Gilbert&refx=&uilang=en'. Yes these pages are reliable as they are New Zealand media and television websites. If you look over on his website you can see what he does to help other adoptive families in New Zealand. See 'https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3pFneJF144'. You can also see a clip from his TVNZ story here 'https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpUZV4p-ak8'. As some other editors have said Delete for this article they claim to be checking all the sources to see if they are reliable. I see the twitter and IMDB were removed. That makes sense of course, but there is still a lot of reliable sources remaining on the page. I feel that he is not notable as a New Zealand cinematographer and that should be removed but notable as his other work with Russian adoption. --122.57.251.189 (talk) 20:30, 28 June 2014 (UTC) — 122.57.251.189 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- That is the worst collection of useless sources I have seen in a long time. They are all either deadlinks, fail to even mention the subject, or are patently unsuitable such as Facebook. SpinningSpark 17:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry they were all linked incorrectly. They all had a ' at the end. http://search.aucklandlibraries.govt.nz/?q=Alex%20Gilbert&refx=&uilang=en , http://tvnz.co.nz/sunday-news/alex-gilbert-my-journey-home-russia-5820767 , http://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=11232549 , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpUZV4p-ak8 Thanks , --122.57.251.189 (talk) 05:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  - The first link is to a library search and the only relevant result that I can see is Gilbert's own book which does not add to notability since it is not independent. The second one is blog by Gilbert, not relevant for the same reason. SpinningSpark 09:08, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Keep The notability is established, I have added a reliable source and the subject has already passed the notability because electronic media is also a reliable source.Justice007 (talk) 17:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The source http://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=11232549 is not reliable; it's an interview-based puff piece. Most of the article is directly attributed to the subject and there is no sign of any independent journalistic research or critical evaluation of what the subject is saying. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

That you think a puff piece while it passes the notabilty obviously, how much do you know about the news field, it is very common to ask the readers to contribute their writings, photos and etc. It is your personal view and opinion that does not require for the rules of wikipedia, how can you say electronic media is not a reliable source, that are all third party sources. What you mention WP:BLP1E, please read it again with more much care--the subject passes general notability as well. What do you mean no sign of any independent journalistic research??!!. The interview is taken by a journalist who is the reporter of the newspaper, take a look at these--- , , , , please read that thoroughly, may you understand the fairness. I am very sorry to say that I doubt your request of proposed deletion of the article while you have even not taken a look thoroughly at the newspaper and its credibility. I hope this helps you to be fair and constructive.Justice007 (talk) 22:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I do think that's a reliable source, but a single reliable source doesn't ensure that a subject is notable; WP:GNG seeks significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources, and even that only grants a presumption of notability, to be considered along with other guidelines such as those dealing with single events. Agyle (talk) 21:32, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment Surely an Articles for Deletion nomination shouldn't take this long to resolve? It is clearly notable. This was nominated on the 19th of June. --122.57.251.189 (talk) 04:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

It takes as long as it takes. Three relistings is not uncommon if there's ongoing discussion. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 17:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:ENT, tried real hard to find rational to keep this, but this BLP article is sourced entirely on non-reliable sources on top of failing the above argument. ♥ Solarra ♥ ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 05:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment Hello Solarral. The NZ herald is the most circulated newspaper on NZ. Which that source on his page is reliable. Also TVNZ is the biggest TV network in nz which is also a reliable source. He is also the main subject on both of these sources. --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 07:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Delete. Gilbert is a non-notable cinematographer. After cutting out all the notability-irrelevant sources we are left with a New Zealand TV documentary and subsequent New Zealand newspaper coverage of his meeting with his birth mother in Russia. Frankly, TV makes these kind of documentaries all the time with fly-on-the-wall following of adopted children, homeless people, drug addicts, victims of scams, families on benefit etc etc etc. To my mind this kind of thing falls under WP:NOTNEWS. The subjects of this kind of coverage have no ongoing notabiity. The only difference in this case is that the subject has written a book and has some aptitude for self-publicity. SpinningSpark 09:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Delete. All three criteria for WP:BLP1E seem to be met, which suggests "we should generally avoid having an article" on such a subject. The claim of notability is based on Gilbert being the subject of a TV news piece and an article about his finding his birth parents. The amount and duration of coverage were limited, and fall short of establishing Gilbert as an ongoing notable individual. Another point brought up is he wrote an autobiography, but this was self-published, and while it may be interesting it is not indicative of notability. ––Agyle (talk) 21:32, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I really neither hesitate to express my view towards the wiki-rules nor bother how one contributes. If there is lack of description in the exact concept of the notability, I see there is no any medician yet to avoid "voting" that must be accepted.Justice007 (talk) 16:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment I have tried to say how notable he is. First of all he is not under a one event subject. He appeared on a TV show in NZ which had the highest ratings of the night on TV One. He also had a very notable and reliable newspaper article in the NZ Herald. - http://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=11232549 The biggest Newspaper in NZ. He also has a book in all major NZ Libraries and is also appearing on NZ TV again- http://alexgilbert.co.nz/catch-cook-world/ & http://www.freeviewnz.tv/tv-guide.aspx (look at Choice TV 12 - 6PM- 21 August) . Someone that actually lives in NZ should be commenting on this nomination to actually know how reliable the sources are. I still feel that he is notable. He also did a talk with Adoption families in Auckland, NZ - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3pFneJF144 & http://www.icanz.gen.nz/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=271&Itemid=236 (Look at the About page on this website). Surely all of these add up to Notability. Especially the NZ Herald link. Also the amount of coverage was not limited on his story. It was played on NZ TV on the highest played TV Channel in NZ- http://en.wikipedia.org/TV_One_(New_Zealand) . Here is the ratings for the show he was featured on - http://www.throng.co.nz/2014/02/tv-ratings-2-february-2014/ also the on Demand link - http://tvnz.co.nz/sunday/s2014-ep1-video-5821764 and also the extra page that is on the TVNZ website- http://tvnz.co.nz/sunday-news/alex-gilbert-my-journey-home-russia-5820767 .

Thank You and I hope this changes your minds wherever you are in the world. --122.57.251.189 (talk) 21:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Delete (again...). WP:BLP1E. 1292simon (talk) 09:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The result was delete. j⚛e decker 15:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Nichole Galicia

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

Something is just not right here. As explained in more detail on the talk page, from 27 July 2006 until 8 February 2013 this article existed under the title Nichole Robinson. It was facing proposed deletion until I found sources (notably, a feature in the Spanish newspaper La Voz de Galicia ) stating that Nichole Robinson is the same actress now known as Nichole Galicia, who had a role in Django Unchained. Based on all that information, on 8 February 2013 I moved the article to Nichole Galicia with a redirect from Nichole Robinson and added references to some of the recent articles about her.

Since then, a number of IP and SPA editors have come to the page asserting that Nichole Robinson and Nichole Galicia are not the same person. But if they are not, then we do not have sufficient reliable sources here to show notability, because all but one of the sources refer to work performed under both names. The notability of the subject is marginal in any case, but if the earlier "Nichole Robinson" roles are excluded, there really isn't much of a case to keep the article. Of the four cited sources, three of them mention roles played under both names: in addition to the piece from La Voz de Galicia, the Ebony article mentions her earlier roles in Huff and Love Don't Cost a Thing, and the Uptown article lists Love Don’t Cost A Thing and Dirty. There's no credit for Nichole Galicia in any of those projects, so removing the name Nichole Robinson from the article while allowing the credits to remain leaves us with a seriously inaccurate article.

There is a related discussion at the Help Desk. ~~Misplaced Pages:Help desk#BLP inaccuracies.~~ Both there and on the talk page, an editor identifying herself as Nichole Galicia has asked for deletion of this article due to inaccuracies.

The bottom line: if the cited sources aren't accurate, we are left with a failure of verifiability and the article should be deleted. Arxiloxos (talk) 20:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

~~Oppose:~~ I think its the same person trying to re-invent themselves and dump their history, a bit like how Tom Hanks will never talk about BIG. The internet archive of Nicholerobinson.com (Bio section) lists the disputed films/roles and also states her name as Nichole Galicia. If they are two separate people they need a good publicist to distinguish them from one another as Nicole Robinson also has an IQ of 183 the same as Nicole Galicia. - X201 (talk) 16:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

That possibility has occurred to me more than once, but in that case I'm inclined to favor deletion under WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, which allows deletion of an article where the relatively unknown subject requests it. I can anticipate discussion of whether her notability is sufficiently marginal to qualify under that clause. But deletion would be better, at least, than leaving the article in an inaccurate condition where credits are listed under a name for which no credit actually exists, or where substantial information from reliable sources is excluded without good cause. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

If she's not notable at all, then I'm OK with deletion on that count. The angle I was worried about was a process of delete this article, then up pops a new article that is notable and only covers the post Django career. - X201 (talk) 07:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that thought has also crossed my mind, and I agree with you 100%. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Delete - If there is doubt as to the reliability of information in a biography of a living person and the subject requests deletion, we should err on the side of caution and delete the questionable BLP. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Keep. Notable model, actress, numerous reliable sources indicate this, multiple in-depth coverage easily meets WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Except that, as explained above, there is no "Nichole Galicia" in any of those other films and TV shows, so that information's accuracy is in doubt.--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:20, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how this is relevant to whether the article titled Nichole Galicia should be deleted. Most likely, she changed her name; perhaps she got married or divorced; what's the big deal? Here is one source saying she simply changed her name from Robinson to Galicia. Why this has anything to do with a deletion discussion is beyond me, since the actress/model is clearly notable. I don't see how it calls into question the accuracy of the entire article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:26, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

As explained above, there has been a long string of editors (some of them identifying themselves as the subject) who have contested this, most recently at the Help Desk and previously at and and and and and and and and and . --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:55, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

A simple solution is let's leave out any mention of the word Robinson in this article. Then, Nichole Galicia, regardless of any past names or associations, regardless of any past confusion, is highly notable. Would that end the fuss? In addition, we can not know for sure whether anybody identifying themselves as one or more of these persons is the real person, unfortunately; rather, let's stick with the one name, and the references, and that, said the cat, is that.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:47, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

In addition, please consider deleting this redirect page from Nichole Robinson to Nichole Galicia. It is recommended that the closing admin delete the redirect page since this appears to be one more splinter causing this article inflammation.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:39, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

No, that is not a suitable solution; it would leave us with a blatantly inaccurate article. It is clear that no one named Nichole Galicia appeared in any the pre-2009 movies. If we leave out the references to Nichole Robinson while keeping the credits that belong to her, we leave the article with a serious problem. At the risk of repeating what I've been saying all along: Either Nichole Robinson is the same person as Nichole Galicia (as stated in the apparently reliable La Voz de Galicia article but disputed by various editors) or none of the articles that refer to older credits can be accepted as accurate. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:13, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Arxiloxos; that would then make it an article without coverage of the whole subject. The La Voz de Galicia article, and the NicoleRobinson.com website support the fact that Robinson and Galicia are the same person. There are only two possible correct outcomes to this, Delete the whole article as per the nom, or Keep the article with the Galicia and Robinson content intact. - X201 (talk) 09:36, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Alright, then, if it is decided that we must keep both names in the article, Robinson and Galicia, and there is a source saying they're the same person, then so be it; but it seems to me then this issue will not be resolved this way, with constant fuss about the two names when the current name -- Nichole Galicia -- is the most important one. In my view, this is like the Shakespeare play Much Ado About Nothing.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:02, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Mdann52talk to me! 07:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Delete With the accuracy of the information in question, we should err on the side of caution and delete the article until people can come up with a solidly sourced one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Without the Robinson credits, we have just one film. That means a failure of the notability guidelines for entertainers, which is at least 2 significant roles in major films.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  - Comment. The Robinson issue is irrelevant. The reliable sources refer to a Nichole Galicia who is clearly notable given these sources.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:16, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Delete, I think that the evidence makes it pretty clear that they're both the same person, but even if they are I think that with only one notable role it's stretching it a bit to say she meets WP:ENTERTAINER. Lankiveil 13:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC).
Delete marginal notability and the, not entirely disproved, concerns about the accuracy of biographical info in the article, give me enough cause for concern to suggest we should delete this one. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 07:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 10:25, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

William Schmidt (TV writer)

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

Unsourced BLP. Laun chba ller 07:53, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Delete for failing WP:GNG. The awards and nomination are both shared and mostly obscure, and his credits don't appear to be quite strong enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:40, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker 21:02, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 20:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Delete. Fails BLP. — Wylie pedia 17:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

The result was No consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 18:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Kaali Venkat

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

Repeatedly-recreated bio of an Indian actor, speedy-deleted three times in accordance with WP:CSD#A7 and should have probably been salted at that point.
In any case, the current incarnation is significantly expanded over the deleted versions, but relies only on two sources, one of which is a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE (an interview). The subject does not seem to meet any of the criteria for inclusion in WP:ACTORBIO. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 07:52, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 04:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Keep, done enough notable work. His progress has been recognized and reported in the media . Editor 2050 (talk) 21:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, that "progress" is more or less the point. You don't get a Misplaced Pages article if you're up-and-coming. You must have already arrived. That's why we have this AFD proposal, to determine if he has, indeed, arrived in accordance with WP:ACTORBIO, or is he merely up-and-coming. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The result was merge to Gladiator (2000 film). By and large, consensus seems to be that this shouldn't exist as an independent article, but that portions of it may be valuable if included in the main article. As it stands, however, the primary concern seems to be that it likely violates our policy on avoiding original research. Consensus at the target of the eventual redirect is obviously free to determine how much, if any, of the content should be merged. slakr 21:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Historical accuracy of Gladiator (2000 film)

AfDs for this article:

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Historical deviations in Gladiator (2000 film)

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

This "article" is in violation of NPOV policies, as the obvious intent is to attack the accuracy of a work of fiction -- why not list things the film got right? (See WP:COATRACK.) An actual article highlighting aspects the film maker portrayed accurately and those aspects that aren't accurate could be appropriate, but this page is problematic. The article also contains no prose, and comes off as original research -- it looks like someone opened a history textbook and merely pointed out what's "wrong" in the film. Calidum 21:29, 15 June 2014 (UTC) Calidum 21:29, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Delete. Nerdcruft. Not a suitable subject for an encyclopedia article: Gladiator is a work of fiction. The

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites | 23:28, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites | 23:28, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites | 23:28, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites | 23:28, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Delete If the film was criticized by critics and/or historians for its faults, a summary of those highlighted by that criticism is appropriate, as we would do in the case of when film and books they are based off of differ, or in a more pertinent example, Armageddon (1998 film)#Scientific accuracy being a 2 para summary of everything wrong with the film. But have to agree that this is an incredible level of OR, particular when the film does not present itself as an historically accurate presentation like one would expect from a documentary. --MASEM (t) 23:36, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Keep or redirect because it can be appropriate to have sub-articles split off from the film article if the amount of real-world coverage is significant. For example, this is an entire book comparing film to history. This has a full chapter comparing film to history. This also has a full chapter. I do agree that the article currently has too much original research, and it should be purged. Following that, it should not be deleted. Depending on the valid content remaining, it can be kept or redirected to the "Historical accuracy" section at the film article. It's highly likely that much more than two paragraphs can be written about the film's historical accuracy. Erik (talk | contrib) 00:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Keep The subject of the article is notable as reliable sources have discussed it. Unsourced sections and original research can be removed but that's no excuse to delete the article. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:31, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm replying to you, but this is more of a general comment. I'm not disputing that sources have covered the topic, or that it doesn't deserve mention at all. My argument is that there is no reason to have this information in a separate, coatrack article. As to fixing the issues with the article, they existed at the time of the last AFD -- in 2009. In the 5+ years since that closed, no one has attempted to fix anything in regards to sourcing or original research. Calidum 02:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
How does WP:COATRACK apply? In a nutshell, "Articles about one thing shouldn't mostly focus on another thing." If it has to do with the article title, "Historical accuracy" is just used here as neutral terminology, as it is done in section headings within film articles. It's a roof under which one can report on accurate and/or inaccurate elements of the film. The presentation is messy, to be sure, but I'm opposed to outright deletion because the page history is worth keeping around (and mentioning on the film article's talk page if we redirect this sub-article). While we have a lot of unsourced material here, it would be easy enough to search relevant terms and find out if a particular element (such as military organization) had been discussed by historians. For example, the S.P.Q.R. tattoo passage is unreferenced, but searching for the keywords, I found this. Erik (talk | contrib) 02:35, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Coatrack is applicable because facts were cherry picked to present a one-sided view of things. (If you still think that it is not applicable, WP:POVFORK would apply, as a wise editor once noted.) And again, the concerns about original research date back at least five years, so forgive me for not believing a well-written, well-sourced article can be written. And even if it could be, I see no reason why a separate article is needed. Calidum 04:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree that a separate article is not necessarily needed. Cleanup is definitely needed after so many years. What I am suggesting is to preserve the page history so if an editor were to ever work on Gladiator, it would be available for possible reincorporation, following the guidelines. I would say that a sub-article is appropriate if a section in a film article overwhelms the rest of the article. The list of accolades is one such example. Here, I think if the film got a Featured Article treatment, I think a "Historical accuracy" sub-article would be needed, based on the sources I highlighted above, and probably more out there. Would you endorse redirecting as opposed to deleting? Erik (talk | contrib) 13:08, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I'd be okay with what you're suggesting as it essentially accomplishes the same thing I want. Calidum 16:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
TheLongTone and Masem, would redirecting be an acceptable outcome? We would link to the page history at the film article's talk page for any editors who decide to take on this endeavor. Erik (talk | contrib) 16:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd be happy with a partial merge & redirect, it seems an entirely proper topic within the article on the film.TheLongTone (talk) 16:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

This article title is not searchable so while the redirect makes sense, it's not the best solution. But a history merge might be, as to keep the contributions from here. --MASEM (t) 16:45, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Keep -- The alternative would be to merge back to the article on the film, to which this is properly linked by a "main" template, but to add all this detail to the film article would unbalance it. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Peter, most of this detail has to be purged anyway. It is synthesis in the sense that history books stating detail about the period have nothing to do with the film. There are some sources that make the comparison, and these can be used. However, most of the article is not based on these sources, and the "Historical accuracy" section at the film article is considered sufficient. Erik (talk | contrib) 19:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Selective merge, no redirect to Gladiator (2000 film). This is worth a paragraph in the main article, despite the detail in the sources. Just like with battles where there are often numerous books, but we boil it down to the encyclopedic. --Bejnar (talk) 14:15, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Keep what you can A lot is said about the pillars of Misplaced Pages but if there was a wider goal then that goal would probably have something to do with the promotion of accurate information. Furthermore, if there were a wider interpretation to ignore all rules then that interpretation would probably aim for the promotion of information in any context where it can be achieved. The film industry is a joke and, in my opinion, there is value in any influence that can encourage it to deliver its fantasies from a perspective a little closer to reality. In any borderline decision keep what you can. Gregkaye (talk) 23:00, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Delete - This is a bit of a coatrack, full of original research. Having a couple of sources that also talk about the inaccuracies doesn't fix the other policy violations present. It would be perfectly fine to have a paragraph talking about the inaccuracies in the film's article (that would be neutral), but the sole purpose of this article is to criticize the film, it is a singular POV. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:20, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
WP:NPOV means "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". While films will never imitate history precisely, their prominence may lead to greater scrutiny. If sources show that most historians find Gladiator historically inaccurate, then it is not POV to cover their scrutiny under this specific topic. (As I mentioned earlier, "Historical accuracy" is being used as neutral terminology.) This particular space can be used for a well-written article. If the current text is too messy but the topic itself valid, we don't have to eradicate the space from memory. We can just redirect to the shorter "Historical accuracy" section at the film article. If someone wants to make the effort to have a sub-article using all the reliable sources commenting on the film, there is material in the page history that can be investigated for that purpose. Erik (talk | contrib) 17:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
So is the article also covering the points where the film was historically accurate? No? The current article should be named Historical inaccuracy of Gladiator (2000 film), as it is not examining the accuracy as a whole, only the inaccuracies. Except we can't do that. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Like I said, "Historical accuracy" is being applied as neutral terminology, per WP:FILMHIST. It's like having a "Critical reception" sub-article that doesn't say in its article title what people thought of the film. (And such a sub-article can have mainly positive or negative reviews, depending on if the film was acclaimed or panned.) It's like saying "Comparison to history" when "comparison" implicitly means "comparing and contrasting" to history. Maybe a different article title could be used here, but the assumption shouldn't be that the film will be historically accurate or inaccurate, but that the film will be held up against history. If most historians find it historically inaccurate, then of course the content will be highly critical. There is two groupings of content here -- content that comes from reliable sources that assess the film, and content that comes from editors playing armchair historians in personally comparing film and history. We have too much of the latter, but I think that we have enough sources for the former that a credible sub-article could be had. As I mentioned above, a seemingly original-research bit (no reference) about a tattoo can be researched, and a source found to write about the tattoo in such a credible sub-article. I'm not arguing so much to keep, I feel that redirecting is the better solution here. I just oppose deletion because it amounts to saying, no, you can't have a sub-article like this ever because it "contradicts" the title because it looks at inaccurate items too much more than accurate items. I think it is a plausible outcome if an editor ever makes effort for this sub-topic. Erik (talk | contrib) 16:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | 00:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Merge The article relies heavily on original research, as many of the claims do not have any citation. Overall, this strikes me as way too trivial to justify keeping as a standalone article. That being stated, there are several legitimate sources so a selective merge of sourced content into Gladiator (2000 film)#Historical accuracy is appropriate. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- I see people misusing the OR rule all the time, but this time it is particularly egregious, when everything in this article is so clearly capable of being checked for accuracy. It is a historical accuracy article, for freak's sake.
- "Misplaced Pages does not publish original thought: all material in Misplaced Pages must be attributable to a reliable, published source." Able to be attributed. Not "attributed". Please learn the difference. Anarchangel (talk) 03:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
It's not being misused. WP:SYN is what applies here: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." This means if sources do not mention the film, they cannot be used in this article about the film. The sources that can be used are the ones that explicitly compare the film to history. Misplaced Pages reports; it does not perform original research. In addition, such sources unrelated to the film can be indiscriminate per WP:IINFO: "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." Standard historical sources that are unconnected to the film cannot be contextual and thus have no encyclopedic value. Erik (talk | contrib) 04:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Merge to main article as above. I see a lot of primary-sourced material, not a lot of indication that the historicity was that controversial. Mangoe (talk) 15:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Merge selectively to the Historical accuracy section of Gladiator (2000 film). NorthAmerica 21:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Speedy Delete It's fanboy crap like this that makes Misplaced Pages a laughing stock. Wefihe (talk) 22:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The result was delete. j⚛e decker 01:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Tobi Hill-Meyer

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO, she has won 1 minor, obscure, award, and her movies aren't very groundbreaking themselves. There have been many transgender movies before them. Yet the sources are blogs, obscure magazines, and self-published sources. I see no coverage in the mainstream media to make this transgender porn star more notable than the multitude of other transgender porn stars. Novato 123chess456 (talk) 11:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me, she's not JUST a porn star. She's also a writer and director (albeit a director of porn). She might or might not be notable for her work in those fields, but your rationale ignores those roles completely. -- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 15:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment "The following criteria should be brought up in a Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion discussion only in relation to subjects who are or have been involved in the pornography industry" is what is stated at WP:PORNBIO. She's been involved significantly in the pornography industry, and that's her 'main claim to fame'. My rationale includes all of the fields of pornography she's been involved in, and the fact that her books have not been covered in reliable sources. Novato 123chess456 (talk) 17:11, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 16:15, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 16:16, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

"the sources are blogs, obscure magazines, and self-published sources": Can you clarify? I admit Original Plumbing is an obscure magazine, but are you saying the Daily Xtra is a blog and The Feminist Press is a vanity press?-- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 16:32, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I thought the Daily Xtra was some sort of blog type site, but it's actually a glossy magazine, which usually precludes it from WP:RS, and Original Plumbing doesn't seem very reliable either, as another glossy magazine with fake penises featured prominently on the cover (for transexual women-to-men who need prosthetics). Original Plumbing also has this article, in which the author did not capitalize his own name. The Feminist Press is some sort of publishing department at the "city university of New York", which seems vary vague as to whether it is in New York City or some other city like Buffalo. I like to point to examples of the content, however, when saying that something is not WP:RS. Such as this excerpt, which changes the text orientation on every page, and long run on sentences about feminism related topics. The writer also fails to capitalize the first word of the sentence, "I". Novato 123chess456 (talk) 17:29, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

CUNY is in New York City, as clearly stated on its Misplaced Pages page. But the "vagueness" of the location really shouldn't be relevant to whether a book published there is reliable. The text's orientation is not changed at all in the excerpt of King Kong Theory you linked. It's the alignment. At any rate that is a translation of a French book originally published by another publisher so I'm not sure if that's relevant here...

"Fake penises featured prominently on the cover" of Original Plumbing??? Not sure where you got that idea...-- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 21:28, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

You have also failed to address the key point I've raised, that none of the sources cover the subject of the article in-depth, are not affiliated, and pass WP:RS, the feminist book contains ten pages written by the subject of this article, obviously it's an affiliated source, and doesn't cover Hill-Meyer in any other section of the book. The Daily Xtra (NSFW) is a glossy magazine, and the one article it has on Hill-Meyer only covers her pornographic aspect of her career. Original plumbing (actual porn in the link) contains an interview with Tobi Hill-Meyer about her porn life. According to WP:PORNBIO, the guidelines for notability as a pornographic actor are either

Winning multiple industry awards. The feminist porn awards are not "industry" awards, they are fringe to most of the pornography world
Starring in a revolutionary film in the pornography genre. There are a lot of other transexual porn performers before her.
Coverage in multiple, mainstream, sources. Obscure transexual magazines and feminist publishing companies do not count as mainstream media, and therefore, she doesn't seem to be very notable according to WP:PORNBIO.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 123chess456 (talk • contribs)

Comment on The Feminist Press source. Tobi Hill-Meyer is mentioned in the book 7 times. She did write a ten page chapter on transgender inclusion in pornography, yet that would probably qualify as an affiliate source. Novato 123chess456 (talk) 17:29, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment on Original Plumbing article. The article was an interview with Tobi Hill-Meyer. Novato 123chess456 (talk) 17:29, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment The Feminist Press is a very reputable scholarly press housed at the CUNY Graduate Center. Definitely a reputable source. Furthermore, it seems as if there is a page for the Feminist Porn Award, thus it seems to have passed muster elsewhere as a legitimate award.--Theredproject (talk) 02:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 07:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

weak keep, http://www.goodforher.com/fpa_2010 and http://www.goodforher.com/doing_it_ourselves_trans_women_porn_project and significant blogs Gregkaye (talk) 19:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Delete but weak delete, did not find much after reviewing 10 SERP pages on "web" setting, one mention on the "news" setting. That said, my sense is this person is important in this niche, so it is a reluctant vote on my part.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Delete Fails the relevant notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Delete. The "Feminist Porn Awards" are given by a single nn/unimportant retailer to promote products it sells; their man-bites-dog notability does not rise to the "well-known/significant" level required by the applicable SNGs. The cited goodforher.com sources are components of the retailer's promotional website and fail RS requirements. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 10:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr 02:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Delete per nom - Fails PORNBIO .–Davey2010 • (talk) 18:20, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Delete. Concur with nominator and views expressed above. Finnegas (talk) 23:35, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

The result was keep. I note that any controversial material has now been removed. Black Kite (talk) 10:21, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Mina Orfanou

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

Completely unsourced BLP containing controversial information. No sourced assertion of notability. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:36, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Keep. There are sources in Greek entertainment publications indicating notability, and indicate the transgender information is probably accurate (although further sourcing is a good idea). Meets GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Comment: Editors should not be citing Google translations of sources. "Born a boy" could be a mistranslation- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 00:44, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 00:48, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I have no opinion on whether or not this article should be retained or deleted, but I do see a pretty significant problem in including some of the information previously included in the article on the basis of machine translated versions of foreign sources. If the information is accurate and can be reliably sourced, please feel free to readd it, but I see a significant BLP issue in including such information based on machine translated articles. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:50, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I revamped the article before, and would not have added the transgender information if I felt it was not valid. But to be safe, we can exclude this information, but we must keep the references; please do not delete references particularly when an article is up for deletion.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:32, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Though I don't intend to bother deleting the references, it does make the article a little bit silly to stack eight references for the one initial claim. If you'd like to use references to argue that someone meets the GNG, it's perfectly fine just to include them in the AfD discussion - it doesn't harm the strength of the keep claim for the references not to be included in the article at the time a keep vote is made. What matters is the existence of references far more than whether or not they are included in the article during an AfD - and what is assessed by a closing admin will be the quality of the arguments in the AfD discussion far more than the current state of the article. Please do not try to include potentially contentious information based on a machine translated version of an article that was originally written in a language you do not speak on this article or elsewhere though; machine translations can and frequently do result in serious ambiguities or misunderstandings of the originally cited sources, and aren't appropriate to use in a BLP for any claim that is possibly remotely controversial or contentious. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:04, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining; I somewhat agree about not using google translate, yes there can be inaccuracies, but my sense was from revamping the article, examining sources, that the overall picture of a transgendered person was correct. About piling more references into the article as opposed to merely listing them in the AfD debate -- from my experience, my sense is that many closing admins do not slog through much of the AfD debate, but rather, go straight to the article, assess the references for themselves, and then decide. When this happens, it is highly important to have the references within the article itself. Imagine the article is like a person being sent to the guillotine, and the references are like letters from well-wishers, trying to persuade the judges to spare the person; shouldn't eight references be preferred to three? We can even try an experiment; if the closing admin actually reads this comment, could he or she mention the word Betelgeuse in the closing summary?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:35, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Evaluated this for closing, decided it wasn't ready, decided to participate instead. But Betelgeuse. ;-) --j⚛e decker 04:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Keep. After checking news results for her name in Greek (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL), the coverage of Mina seems sufficient to presume notability. It would be good to get verification from someone who can read Greek, but sources like this and these seem legit enough. The claim of her being a trans woman also seems correct. I was editing from mobile earlier so I wasn't able to check thoroughly. -- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 16:35, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 07:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Keep I too am dealing with automated translation, but as I dig through source after source after source, some of those appear to be significant coverage in reliable (for entertainment figures) sources providing reliable coverage. I think it's fair to exercise caution with the claims regarding the subject being trans, even I suspect the claim is almost certainly accurate based on what I've read through translation in Greek *and* French sources, and the implications of , and the direct transliteration of mention of her participation in a pride parade sourced at saying, in part, "τρανσέξουαλ ηθοποιός Μίνα Ορφανού", my own knowledge of the Greek alphabet makes τρανσέξουαλ being directly translated as transgender as well as being a clear cognate (tau = t, rho = r, etc.), and ηθοποιός meaning actress according to my dictionary, Wiktionary and Gtranslate. Finally, I would argue against "fixing" the overcitation--someone who can read Greek may be able to do a more reliable job of re-expanding the stub from provided sources, and there's not much text here for the overcitation to distract from. By rule, sure, we'd kill 'em, but as a practical matter, I think this is a fair case for leaving them be. --j⚛e decker 04:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Speedy Delete The unsourced or even explained statements in categories without any corresponding information in the text should not stand. This is a clear BLP violation that needs to be removed immidiately.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr 02:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Provisional Keep, until someone who can read Greek has a look at the sources and verifies that they say, broadly, what the machine translation says. I too am quite uncomfortable on basing notability claims on machine translated sources, especially potentially libelous or extraordinary claims. Lankiveil 03:07, 13 July 2014 (UTC).
Keep: notable actress, notable role. Article needs expansion though, the sources imply that the article should be bigger. XiuBouLin (talk) 06:23, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The result was delete. → Call me Hahc21 20:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Paul Bocking

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

Article about a filmmaker and politician, with no strong evidence that he passes our notability rules for either endeavour. His "notability" as a filmmaker is sourced entirely to primary sources and coverage in local community weeklies, with no indication provided that his film actually secured any meaningful distribution or media coverage — and his "notability" as a politician is limited to his candidacy for a seat on Toronto City Council (candidates for office do not pass WP:POLITICIAN just for being candidates, and that's especially true when the office being sought is at the municipal level of government.) I'm willing to withdraw this if the sourcing can be beefed up to actually get him past either POLITICIAN or WP:CREATIVE, but if the Scarborough Mirror is the best you can do for sourcing then your subject has not cleared the bar. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 02:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Keep.Undecided. ~~Notable activist, often quoted in media, sufficient independent reliable sources meets the general notability guideline.~~ See below.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Any activist worth the descriptor "activist" will get quoted a few times in newspaper articles, just because he's there to be quoted. He is not, however, the subject of those articles in which he gets quoted — which is what GNG requires. And your sourcing additions still relied primarily on minor neighbourhood weeklies, like the York Guardian and the Scarborough Mirror and the Toronto Observer, which don't surpass our reliable source rules. (Community weeklies might be acceptable for some confirmation of facts after enough other sources had been added to get the person over the notability hump, but they can't confer notability on a person by themselves as they're not broadly distributed enough.) Bearcat (talk) 16:07, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

The Toronto Sun is a major big-city Canadian daily so I don't see how it can be identified as a local paper; it has a readership of 143,475 daily 200,644 Sunday, weekly circulation was 956,482 in 2011. Further, Toronto is Canada's largest city with population close to 3 million. So, when they cover him here and here, the editors feel he is notable. I have not heard of a Misplaced Pages guideline which rules out newspapers such as the Scarborough Mirror; I used to write for a local paper in New Jersey and I had to check and double-check my facts like all reporters, and I could be held accountable if my reporting had been inaccurate; is there anything in the Scarborough Mirror which is incorrect or untrue? Further, if the subject was only an activist, or only a filmmaker, I'd agree there might be notability issues; but the subject is multidimensional, being a union leader, filmmaker, public speaker, candidate for public office; the net effect—or gestalt if you will—is a changemaker. Bocking is about his causes (workers' rights, transportation, etc) rather than himself, and reporters reflect this in their coverage.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:22, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say the Toronto Sun was an inherently invalid source — it is, however, a problematic one, as it's a Fleet Street-style tabloid newspaper that frequently inserts ideologically biased editorial commentary directly into its news coverage, and thus presents WP:NPOV problems. But the overarching problem with the Toronto Sun articles is, as I noted above, that Bocking is not the subject of the articles in question — his name appears in a couple of their articles giving a brief quote about something else, but that is not the same thing as substantive coverage in which he is the subject.

And yes, Misplaced Pages does deprecate low-circulation community weeklies as prima facie evidence of notability. They're not invalid for additional verification of facts after basic notability has been covered off by stronger sources, but they cannot confer notability if they are the article's main or only sources — because by their very nature, they cover many more things of exclusively local interest (church bake sales, purely local businesses, etc.) that don't belong in an encyclopedia. They're not discounted because they're somehow less trustworthy than major dailies — they're discounted because their coverage focus is too localized to adequately prove that a topic belongs in an encyclopedia with an international audience. Bearcat (talk) 21:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 08:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Mdann52talk to me! 07:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Delete no evidence of notability beyond his candidacy; all the sources are but trivial mentions. Misplaced Pages is not an election billboard. -- Ohc 08:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Comment. Based on Bearcat and Ohconfucius, changing Keep to Undecided (above). My sense is this subject is borderline notability, could go either way.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Delete - There needs to be significant coverage about Bocking in independent reliable sources. Being quoted is not having an article written about you. -- Whpq (talk) 17:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Delete A local activist and politician who does not pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

The result was delete. → Call me Hahc21 04:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Timothy Bailey

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

Unremarkable animator. Three episodes of The Simpsons over three years isn't particularly notable, and he has no awards or honors. Taylor Trescott - + _{my edits} 01:21, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker 02:13, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 19:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Delete - Very weakly sourced. I agree with the nominator about his notability. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 19:25, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Delete - next to no sources about him. Fails WP:GNG LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Delete due to lack of reliable third-party coverage SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 16:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

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)