Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ché Walker

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. TravellingCari 01:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ché Walker

Minor theatre worker. The writing credits are all either red-linked or link to existing works of the same title, the director credits don't appear to be for major projections, and the acting credits don't even list the parts played. There are, tellingly, no sources other than the subject's own website. CalendarWatcher (talk) 07:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? You think this is telling and that he is minor? Evidently you did not feel the need to even do a cursory Google search. Either way, I'm long past trying to understand what drives the deletionists in this place. But just for the record, a few links - do what you will. --Peripatetic (talk) 12:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC) http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/stage/theatre/article4213556.ece http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0907610/ http://www.doollee.com/PlaywrightsW/walker-che.html http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/theatre/article-23504126-details/Che+Walker+is+Camden's+chronicler/article.do http://www.wac.co.uk/content/?q=node/537 http://www.faber.co.uk/author/che-walker/ (a published author in a leading publishing firm) http://www.londontheatre.co.uk/londontheatre/reviews/frontline08.htm http://www.musicomh.com/theatre/features/che-walker_0608.htm[reply]

And you apparently did not feel the need to add a single one of the above sources nor any significant claims to the article. Perhaps you could apply some of your understanding to basics of article writing as opposed to the compiling of an uninteresting CV. As for your links, perhaps you could also apply your understanding to 1) formatting for readability; 2) the basic requirements for reliable sources, including the part about 'multiple'; 3) notability standards for entertainers; 4) regarding your 'published author in a leading publishing firm', that notability of a parent entity or topic (of a parent-child "tree") does not always imply the notability of the subordinate entities; 5) this handy guideline for interaction. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. The blue links in his writing credits go to other things altogether. If he were notable, his plays would already have articles. His imdb entry only shows that he has appeared in one or two episodes of episodic TV, has never starred in anything. Directing plays by famous people at non-famous locations does not make someone famous. Corvus cornix_talk 23:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. this link establishes our man's notability, surely? If not, can someone explain to me (possibly with more civility than contributors are displaying above) why it doesn't. And The Globe is hardly a non-famous location, is it? AndyJones (talk) 13:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for that, Andy. Based on that, I'm striking my above comments and changing my opinion to keep. Corvus cornix_talk 17:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've added that link to the article. It still needs a lot of cleanup, though. AndyJones (talk) 20:17, 18 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per links and arguments above. As stated when I deprodded, about 80 gnews and gbooks hits; the NYT and other major news sources have reviewed his plays.John Z (talk) 06:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Nice job Peripatetic on finding the link. Schuym1 (talk) 07:42, 22 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.