Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Meyer

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. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 00:34, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Meyer[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

As with his brother, Anthony Meyer (actor) (also AfD'd here), I was trying to substantiate the article's claim that he was born in Watford. In doing so, I discovered that I could find absolutely no significant coverage about him, and his roles, like his brother's do not appear to be significant enough to pass WP:NACTOR.

I checked all the usual Google suspects, as well as WMF Library, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, British Newspaper Archive, and Newspapers.com and found nothing, even when adding specific terms like "Watford" or "Octopussy". Please note that he is not, so far as I can tell, the David Meyer of Dover who has quite a few hits on Newspapers.com. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:53, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and England. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:53, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as written. No sources supporting claims of notability. BD2412 T 00:08, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. QuietHere (talk) 03:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unfortunately, this article fails WP:GNG. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 14:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly a notable actor who has had numerous leading roles in Shakespeare productions and appeared opposite some very ntoable actors in films BD2412, QuietHere and Handmeanotherbagofthemchips. I've expanded it and suspect there is much more coverage of him in various theatrical publications and newspapers.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any sources that constitute WP:SIGCOV? Everything you added that I have access to appears to be a trivial mention of the "David Meyer played X" variety. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NACTOR asks for "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". That I can see, there are some notable projects here where Meyer has minor roles (e.g. 3rd Squire in Parsifal) and some non-notable projects where Meyer has significant roles (e.g. starring in that 1976 Hamlet), but none of his roles beyond Octopussy satisfy both requirements at once. And as PMC said, the sources you added are mostly passing mentions that don't satisfy SIGCOV. I just don't see a notability pass here. QuietHere (talk) 11:45, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

90% of actors don't have what you could call extensive biographical coverage, it's time the guidelines were updated to acknowledge this. Actors who are mentioned in dozens of reliable sources from many notable films typically are acceptable. I was discussing this recently with SusunW that most biographies don't have the coverage we want but you have to put bits and pieces together. Wikipedia is better off having this than not.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:05, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Im not entirely sure that i can agree with your opinion. The sources that support the pages of the more notable actors, contain not just passive mentions, but entire opinions on the impact theese actors have or had. If, in order to establish the notability of one person, you have to (your own words) "put bits and pieces together", then that's proof that this person is just not notable. Wikipedia is not better off having an article about everyone who starred in some sorta role, based on just routine coverage. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 19:21, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If 90% of actors don't have extensive biographical coverage, we shouldn't have pages for 90% of actors. You don't get a Wikipedia page just for doing a job, whether that job is appearing in movies, being a CEO, or playing sports. GNG is the governing standard for biographies except where explicit exceptions (NPOL, NPROF) have been carved out. We literally just finished litigating this with the recent NSPORTS RFC, and I'm starting to think we need a NACTOR RFC as well. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:59, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then there's hundreds of thousands of biographies on Wikipedia which should be deleted based on the lack of "extensive coverage" criteria then. Only the top actors tend to have biographies and massive amounts of coverage. Many of our guidelines are contradictory and merely the opinion of a handful of editors, and could quite easily be updated/replaced. The main criteria should be "is there enough coverage to write a minimum start class half credible encyclopedia article about that person", and "has this actor had any notable leading roles in films and stage performances?"? The reality is that a very large number of biographies can be written but don't have detailed articles about them. Some people would prefer it if Wikipedia strictly only covered the most important content of course, you have a point. But Wikipedia clearly isn't what you want it to be with its 6.5 million articles.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:18, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then there's hundreds of thousands of biographies on Wikipedia which should be deleted based on the lack of "extensive coverage" criteria then. That is exactly what I'm saying, yes. Quality is far more important than quantity. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:27, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The most important content should be quality first before we grow and go for quantity, but Wikipedia hasn't developed like that.. There's a theatrical article in PDF about the Isaac Newton role at:

www.nature.com › articles by P Ball · 2011 — Isaac Newton perplexes and fascinates ... David Meyer, one of three actors — including a woman — who play different facets of Isaac Newton ... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:36, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meyer isn't even discussed in the text of that article! He's mentioned in a caption. Come on, man. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:41, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The role is discussed though and it's reviewed in a major journal as a notable play/role.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:50, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The play is being reviewed in a major journal. Not one word of that review is devoted to Meyer's performance. His name literally does not appear except in a caption. It is the absolute epitome of a trivial mention. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:53, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

His role is notable enough for a full page in a major journal!! It's a science journal so of course it's going to be written from the viewpoint of Newton. I'm sure there are reviews about the play and his performance in theatrical publications/newspapers.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:59, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And if there are, I'm sure you'll be able to find some and post them here, but so far you've produced a lot of sizzle and absolutely zero steak, so I'm not exactly holding my breath. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:12, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly notable now; excellent WP:HEY by User:Dr. Blofeld. I think those who voted delete before Dr. Blofeld's work should be made aware of the article's expansion. Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:32, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable and passes WP:GNG. Its recent expansion has secured notability and assuredness regarding Meyer's career. ♦ jaguar 15:32, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jaguar. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:19, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable, given the number of references (ie, passes WP:GNG). The editor formally known as SchroCat, editing from 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:11F2:723B:CAC4:ABD9 (talk) 09:37, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SchroCat, if that is who you are, you ought to have the experience to know that number of references does not correlate in any way to quality of references, and frankly this is an embarrassing argument for you to be making. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:41, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is me. There's nothing embarrassing about my !vote, although perhaps I should have been clearer about it. The number and range of references referring to him provide a certain weight, rather than just an ephemeral mention. The number and weight of these smaller references get it over the GNG hurdle in my opinion; I've also run a few additional media searches and found a partial profile in a local UK newspaper and an interview with him in The Independent - as a UK broadsheet, it's a reliable source. I also looked at his brother but he comes no-where near enough GNG for me to say the same thing there. This Meyer is a bit different. That's just my take on it, but obviously people's mileage differs. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:11F2:723B:CAC4:ABD9 (talk) 09:55, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable. 5Q5|^✉ 11:09, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since it has been expanded, the notability has been demonstrated. Edwardx (talk) 11:22, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep − a no-brainer: repeated reviews in The Stage of his work as a performer and as a director. Tim riley talk 17:52, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The people voting to keep this article clearly have not actually looked at the sources. Not a single one mentions Meyer in any greater capacity than "David Meyer played X role". Significant coverage is required in order for a reference to support a notability claim, and not a single one linked here does so whatsoever. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:41, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one who hasn't looked at the sources then. Which Twin is Tony?". The Guardian. 2 February 1985. p. 13 Newspapers.com . WP:SIGCOV says " Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. " ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:22, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem! A director who works in tandem with Richard Hickox on a Britten opera at Sadler's Wells is not notable? Come off it! Tim riley talk 19:06, 4 September 2022 (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.