This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Actors and actresses. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.
Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Actors and filmmakers|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
Note that 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 links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Actors and actresses.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
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.
Non-notable, contested prod. Child actor with several guest spots on TV shows. No major roles, no independent coverage/reliable sources. Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A non-notable actor. Schuym1 (talk) 17:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jerrydelusional ¤ kangaroo 22:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment has anyone looked for sources to support assertions of notability? Just saying it is "nn" is hardly what proves it is so. The deletion policy says the burden is on those calling for deletion to make a coherent argument. The best way to achieve that end is to make a good faith effort to find sources. You may be surprised and come back and say you found them, or you may come back and make a compelling argument for lack of notability like I checked here, here, and here, and I found no... Jerrydelusional ¤ kangaroo 22:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to humor you Jerry, there are no results for google news archive. Also, stating the obvious, there are no google books results. I guess you don't need me to tell you how many google scholar results there are. Finally, again somewhat obviously, there are plenty (around 170) google web search results, none of which constitute significant coverage in a reliable source. So, in this case "non-notable" pretty well sums it up. PhilKnight (talk) 23:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus leaning keep. There are conflicting comments about whether or not the google hits make samwell notable. Searching by a real name isn't a very good marker here, because he doesn't go by his real name as an internet entertainer. The close is without prejudice of a relist in the future this discussion simply failed to show a consensus to delete. RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He seems noteworthy enough to me -- he's one of the biggest Internet celebrities out there. Aside from the 15 million hits his "What What" video has received (and the fact that it's one of the most discussed YouTube videos of all time [check the "honors" section for the video]), his other videos get tons of views as well. Plus, he's been a featured guest on the Lily Allen and Friends television program and is appearing in two upcoming films.
And if you go to the Brownmark Films website (www.brownmarkfilms.com) it looks like he's received a ton of press from some very mainstream sources. 65.30.186.104 (talk) 07:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Why would you search for his real name? There's only around 1500 Ghits for ‘Adam Bahner‘, and yet Tay Zonday is considered notable. Search for the very generic name ‘Samwell‘ and you'll see that this particular Samwell dominates those results (7 out of the top 10). If this article is deleted I would bet it has more to do with Samwell's over-the-top flamboyance, rather than his lack of notability, and that's not cool. 69.210.102.55 (talk) 19:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete despite the claims above the subject does not appear to have significant coverage from multiple, reliable, 3rd party sources and therefore fails our policies and guidelines for inclusion. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of notability. In addition, the article is unverified, so I support deletion. I wouldn't bother with a redirect, since nobody will search with the (entertainer) tag. seresin ( ¡? ) 00:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr.Z-man 16:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks independent, reliable, in depth, sources. Seems to only be notable for WP:ONEVENT as his other works and his two film roles are minor. - Icewedge (talk) 16:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actor/Singer was featured on long running television show South Park. Very well known. Well known to be an addition to the LGBT community. If we shall delete this article then might as well delete William Sledd and other LGBT minor celebrities. It only makes sense. (Phrasia (talk) 07:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Keep; he did make quite a name for himself for just one video (Yes, it was just one, but should we delete Los Del Rio and Soft Cell for being musical groups with just one big hit?) 96.242.135.203 (talk) 05:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please show us where he meets our notability guideline, which states that to be considered notable, the subject must have received significant coverage in reliable sources which are independent of the subject. seresin ( ¡? ) 22:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Phrasia. Also, while one of his videos is by far the most popular, it seems subjective to say that it is the only one he is known for. His other videos have a lot of views (sum is over 1 mil). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.148.236.90 (talk) 01:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC) — 32.148.236.90 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep per Phrasia. Very well known in LGBT community. Calebrw (talk) 04:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
to which "LGBT community" do you refer - there are a bunch of us around and noone in my "community" knows who this person is. Please don't try to group worldwide section of humanity into one and discuss this article and its subject in accordance with the policies and guidelines of wikipedia. I'm pretty sure "very well known" isn't the same thing as notable. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I perhaps should have reworded in a different, less all-inclusive form. Generalization is of course wrong. Either way, the LGBT community which I am most familiar with regards Samwell quite highly. Calebrw (talk) 02:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Very well known in LGBT community"?? I've never heard of the person at all. Not that I make up the LGBT community, of course :) But perhaps you could provide a reliable source with significant coverage on *the person* (and not his video)? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To SatyrTN: How about this article from MSNBC.com? Seems to reference Samwell more so than the video (5x vs 1x). The Last Lovemaking Taboo Lifted (from the person who added the 2nd Keep) 76.199.158.68 (talk) 21:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that it refers to him more than his video, but that's only in passing in an article that's about something related - which means it isn't the "significant coverage" our notability guidelines are looking for. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Okay, gosh, you're tough! How about this one? Riverfront Times "Samwell Asks The Eternal Question..." It even says, "Subject: Samwell." Also, did you begin to take issue with this article after the photo went up? (The article was up for a while before your AfD thingy, but the AfD seems to coincide with the new photo...) Did that make it seem too promotional? Would removing the photo make you feel better? 76.199.158.68 (talk) 03:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's also this radio interview with LA's popular KROQ hosts "Kevin & Bean" Samwell Interviewed on KROQ. And while this MKEOnline article is about the creators, it does mention Samwell, not in passing. Would that one count? Here's another from BlogCritics magazine. Would that one work? 76.199.158.68 (talk) 03:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! Persistent :) What you're looking for is something to pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines. That means "significant coverage in reliablesecondary sources that are independent of the subject". The interview isn't a secondary source. The MKE-Online isn't about Sam Norman. You mentioned a BlogCritics article - I assume you meant to link to [1]. That's also about the creators (Ciraldo and Swant), not about Norman. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for helping with the link. But why is the interview from the KROQ radio station not considered a secondary source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.199.158.68 (talk) 03:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since he's the one talking, it's a "primary source" - straight from the horses mouth. Pardon the "straight." :)
BTW, the picture didn't bring it to my attention. I patrol the LGBT categories as part of WP:WikiProject LGBT studies and ran across his article through that. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to What What (In the Butt), he's received RS coverage in connection with that, some of which is already sourced in the vid's article. TravellingCari 02:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. As the comments mention, there isn't any reliable coverage to prove any that any of his parts are noteworthy, or significant 3rd party independent coverage at all Black Kite 18:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bit-part actor with no third-party relible sources to indicate significance or notability - I don't believe an imdb page counts. Quite possibly a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest since the only non-anon contributor's name is the same as subject's email address. To show good faith, I feel I should announce immediately that I know Lee Neville personally. I have struggled with my decision over nominating this article for some months but feel my personal involvement doesn't prevent me from nominating this article, nor should I use it as an excuse not to do so when I feel it doesn't comply with Wikipedia policies.GDallimore (Talk) 19:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails the notability and/or verifiability policy/guideline by not having significant coverage in multiple reliable 3rd party sources. No way to verify that any of his roles were significant. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia based on fact. Information in this article is a matter of fact. Any information that hasn't been backed up by information elsewhere on the web has been corrected. Lee Neville is an actor who has a proven career as such. In regards to the comments of G Dallimore in particular and also those of Jasynnash2's - simply googling his name Lee Neville will reveal information from renowned third party institutions/directories/services which are not controlled by the actor in question. In addition, as to G Dallimore's comments regarding the IMDb- the IMDb page of actor Lee Neville was not created by Lee Neville. The IMDb itself is known throughout the world as a reputable database of actors. G Dallimore's constant monitoring of this article and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest due to knowing the individual and seeing him in a negative way is malicious and does not prove or disprove statements of represented fact in this article, and is not what Wikipedia is about. It is recommended that this article remains as it is, barring any information that needs to be cited. User:emotionboy|emotionboy]] (Talk) 18:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply let's start with notability, what importance/significance does this person have in accordance with that policy? Simply existing isn't the same as being notable. verifiability again simple existence isn't the same as verifying that he is notable and why. IMDB is not a reliable source per the reliable sources policy neither are directories/services which only prove existence and not notability. Please make yourself more familiar with the policies and guidelines and if you can find reliable 3rd party sources which cover the subject in a significant non-trivial manner include them in the article. Thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 16:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article has various external links that cover significant coverage. These are sources which are reputable and have rigorous guidelines. Contrary to previous statements by Jasynnash2 the IMDb is reputable. Should you have a problem with that, feel free to challenge every celebrity/actor that refers to the IMDb as an external link on Wikipedia- and good luck! An article is also worthy of note if it fulfils the Wikipedia notibility requirements. Again, the external links confirm that. It is unknown why there are constant attempts to vandalise this article but such attempts are unmerited, malicious and unacceptable. Please see guidelines to being a Wikipedia user. For now, please view the guidelines below regardfing notability. Then feel free to re-read this article and you will find it complies with Wikipedia guidelines.
User:emotionboy|emotionboy]] (Talk) 18:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable.
"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.[1]
"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.[2]
"Sources,"[3] defined on Wikipedia as secondary sources, provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred.[4]
"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.[5]
"Presumed" means that substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not suitable for inclusion. For example, it may violate what Wikipedia is not.[6]
A topic for which this criterion is deemed to have been met by consensus, is usually worthy of notice, and satisfies one of the criteria for a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia. Verifiable facts and content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for inclusion within another article.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Complete rewrite has established notability as noted by those who have commented since the rewrite. Davewild (talk) 18:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Minor actor, with no significant theatrical, film, or television roles noted in the article, nor can any be found in his listing on IMDB. CalendarWatcher (talk) 05:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC) (Ambiguity removed)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability. IMDB does not have anything that would help. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 06:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. What I mean is, even IMDB does not have him meeting WP:BIO. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 06:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am well-aware that he has an IMBD listing, and did not state otherwise: I stated that 'no significant theatrical, film, or television roles' can be found on IMDB. But in the interest of avoiding further confusion, I have altered my remarks. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 08:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question of Nobility - Miles Fisher's Wikipedia page has been online for many months and it was never an issue until just a few days ago. Still, many people continue to look at his page proving that its information has implicit value. Moreover, millions of people have seen his performances, particularly in Superhero Movie (it was covered so significantly that a lengthy article was written on his performance in specific in wikinews article by other members of the wiki commuity - http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Tom_Cruise_spoofed_in_film_%27Superhero_Movie%27). I do not think this article should be deleted on the grounds of a lack of "nobility" of the subject.
Question of Copy Violation - The claim that the text here is nearly identical to that found on Miles Fisher's IMDB page is undisputed. Nonetheless, it is written by the same person. Both authors, on Wiki and on IMDB are "Erwin Fletcher". It can therefor not be plagiarized, as it was written by the same person. Furthermore, the Wiki article has been updated and improved upon since, with many added new external links, and significant restructuring of each paragraph with additional information listed. I do not think this article should be deleted on the grounds of a Copy Violation.
Finally, to quote from the Wikipedia guidelines:
"A topic is deemed encyclopedic if it is "notable"[38] in the Wikipedia jargon; i.e., if it has received significant coverage in secondary reliable sources (i.e., mainstream media or major academic journals) that are independent of the subject of the topic. Second, Wikipedia must expose knowledge that is already established and recognized.[39] In other words, it must not present, for instance, new information or original works."
Google has a myriad of hits on the subject at question. Articles have been written about him in Variety, New York Post, Dallas Morning News, Harvard Crimson. He has been featured on various Television programing. This article is exposing knowledge on him that is already established but giving the subject's biography greater breadth and clarity.
Unless there are other claims against the worth of this article, I advocate a removal of the warning banner at the top. Many thanks. --Erwinfletcher (talk) 05:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
'The claim that the text here is nearly identical to that found on Miles Fisher's IMDB page is undisputed. ' - Unsurprising, as no one, to my knowledge, has made that claim other than yourself. However, if it's true--I haven't checked for myself--then the material in question MUST be deleted as a copyright violation, since IMDB holds the copyright.
The rest of your commentary, unfortunately, does not address the problems with the article and its subject, namely that he's not actually notable nor has he done anything really of note, whatever passing mentions he's generated in trade and alumni publications. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 07:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies WP:NOTE: has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, as can be seen from a brief perusal here. Here are some notable mentions in Daily Variety, Toronto Star and San Francisco Chronicle, however it should be noted that the actor was receiving positive acclaim as far back as 2001, years prior to his appearance in Superhero Movie: - Peppard, Alan (December 3, 2001). "Fate of Texas in their ears". The Dallas Morning News. p. 27A. I will try to work on this article to improve it and add additional sources. (Note: I wrote that Wikinews article mentioned above.) Cirt (talk) 10:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, he does not satisfy WP:NOTE, as brief passing mentions in a few newspaper stories do not constitute'significant coverage', nor am I seeing any evidence of the most of the media name-dropping you listed above. What notable mention in the Toronto Star? What notable mention in theSan Francisco Chronicle? What notable mention in Daily Variety?--the last is only a brief casting notice, probably a press release sent out by his agent. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 12:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the Daily Variety article you refer to that is currently linked in the article is simply a bio brief, the article I mentioned is a different Daily Variety article that gives significant discussion of the individual, as do multiple other WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources, and this amply satisfies WP:NOTE. I will demonstrate this if given a chance to do so, I just have not been able to yet. Cirt (talk) 13:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have emailed Erwinfletcher (talk·contribs) in an attempt to resolve the possible issue related to text from Miles Fisher's bio page on IMDB, which says it is written by "Erwin Fletcher". If the user agrees to release the work under the GFDL, then that is no longer an issue. In any event, I will work to remove all that info anyways and source everything in the article to additional WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources (though I noticed some were already included as external links, and I have begun to format those and add more). Cirt (talk) 11:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how. We can always paraphrase a source. The IMDB page not showing the subject meets WP:N is an example of how not-notable the subject is. IMDB content cannot be regarded as reliible enough to establish notability. The fact remains, he has no notable roles, has done nothing rising to the level required by WP:BIO, and lacks significant coverage by third party sources, Cheers Dlohcierekim 13:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We won't really even need the IMDB source at all in the article, I have found sufficient other secondary sources that satisfy WP:RS/WP:V to improve upon it. I just have not had a chance to do so yet. Cirt (talk) 13:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dlohcierekim (talk·contribs) - I agree with you that IMDB is not the best WP:RS source, that is why we can't really trust IMDB in and of itself as to whether someone is notable or not - we should not rely upon it to judge this but should instead look to see if the individual has been discussed significantly in independent sources, as per WP:NOTE. That is why I will improve upon the article with other secondary sources that satisfy WP:RS and WP:V. Cirt (talk) 13:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have done a good deal of work on this article. I removed all of the material that was the exact same text as at IMDB. I added a whole bunch of material from lots of WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources that significantly discuss the individual. The subject of the article is the son of the President of the Federal Reserve Bank of DallasRichard W. Fisher and grandson of former Congressman James M. Collins. He beat out 10,000 entries at the 2001 International Teen Movie Festival (ITMF) to win "Best Actor" for his own film Head Shot. Newsday focused an article on his career in 2001 - the article is titled: "Miles Fisher, 'It' Boy" and he is referred to as "wunderkind" and "the next Tom Cruise". He was tapped by film director Ronald F. Maxwell for a role in Gods and Generals. He received positive praise in many different papers for his role in Superhero Movie, the reviews singled him out as the only funny part of the movie when the reviews were highly critical of the film itself. And now he has a recurring role on the A&E Network program The Cleaner. At the very least I request that this AfD discussion be relisted to generate a more thorough discussion. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 16:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per rewrite by Cirt. I'm going to assume the multiple independent sources add up to significant coverage under the basic criteria of WP:BIO. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Cirt and as per WP:N#TEMP in that "In 2001, he won Best Actor at the International Teen Movie Festival (ITMF) in Vaughan, Canada for his role in his short film Head Shot". Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 18:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. Userfied obvious autobiography to limit collaterlal damage per WP:BLPGuy (Help!) 21:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable and non-verifiable (no significant coverage from reliable 3rd party sources). Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 04:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did the subject do the voice work credited to him in the article? Yes. However, he does not meet WP:BIO. I couldn't find anything beyond credits for the one or two video games that he's done. Movingboxes (talk) 10:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Voice actor with few or no notable contributions. -- Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 10:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom. Ottre (talk) 20:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Leon Ousby. Please do not modify it. The result of this discussion was "delete". The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Scientizzle 16:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
^Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker (1992-01-06). "Tough love child of Kennedy". The Guardian.) is plainly trivial.
^Self-promotion, autobiography, and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. The published works should be someone else writing independently about the topic. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it. Otherwise, someone could give their own topic as much notability as they want by simply expounding on it outside of Wikipedia, which would defeat the purpose of the concept. Also, neutral sources should exist in order to guarantee a neutral article can be written — self-promotion is not neutral (obviously), and self-published sources often are biased if even unintentionally: see Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for discussion of neutrality concerns of such sources. Even non-promotional self-published sources, in the rare cases they may exist, are still not evidence of notability as they do not measure the attention a subject has received by the world at large.
^Including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, scientific journals, etc. In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article.
^Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. Mere republications of a single source or news wire service do not always constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing articles in the same geographic region about an occurrence, does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Specifically, several journals publishing the same article within the same geographic region from a news wire service is not a multiplicity of works.
^Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of interest by the world at large. See also: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for handling of such situations.
^Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources.
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
