Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isaac Gorman

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:36, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Gorman[edit]

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

not been taken care of and no reliable sources Redsky89 (talk) 07:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whew. Busy whan a child actor: 136 episodes of Home and Away for the seven years from 2002 to 2009... until he left acting at 12 to be a "regular" kid. Enough to merit a redirect to Recurring characters of Home and Away#B. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At a guess I'd say there would be enough coverage in the TV mags, but so far we don't have it sourced, and there's not much online, so I agree with the redirect for now. I imagine he will satisfy WP:N at some point, but we can write the sourced article then. --99of9 (talk) 10:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He seems to have some mild merit when we refer to WP:NACTOR because he was a recurrent character and participated in more than one show. HOWEVER, the notability guidelines say that just satisfying the basic criteria is not a guarantee of inclusion and the lack of verifiable reliable sources makes me lean towards a Delete. I am, however, hoping that he makes it big in the future and allow us to write a worthy and decent article about him. Also, remember that an abandoned/neglected article is not necessarily grounds for deletion. See WP:NEGLECT. -- Loukinho (talk) 03:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V unless a reliable source (not IMDB) can verify the role, redirect if such a source is demonstrated. His name doesn't appear to be mentioned on the official site, the TV5 site, the .... --j⚛e decker ^talk 05:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is that we need to get rid of the article, but whether or not there should be a redirect should be discussed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~. I agree with those above. Seven years on one of Australia's most watched soaps means he's a plausible search term, IMO. Jenks24 (talk) 12:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point by Joe below. Prompted by his comment, I had a look for reliable sources (checked gnews, NewsBank and the Fairfax archives) and couldn't find a single mention of someone called Isaac Gorman being in Home and Away. Changing my vote to no redirect per Joe and WP:V, though I'll be happy to change if someone has more success than me looking for a reliable source. Jenks24 (talk) 11:00, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No redirect per WP:V without the demonstration of a single reliable source of the role, which is the case at the moment. Sneaky hoaxes are rare, but not non-existent, e.g., the late great C-movie actor Morton Schwartz, an unusual case in that we finally found affirmative evidence that it was an intentional hoax. To be clear, I've got no issue with the notability sufficient for a redirect--if the claim is accurate. --j⚛e decker ^talk 18:12, 6 July 2012 (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.