Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Shaw (actor) (2nd nomination)

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. Fundamental disagreement over the quality of sources and whether or not they are sufficient. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:44, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Shaw (actor)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[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)

It's not as abysmally sourced as the article previously deleted at AfD, but the underlying notability issue has not changed since the last AfD a few years ago. Nowhere near meeting WP:GNG, online coverage of the subject is trivial or else not independent. In principle could be redirected to Martin Shaw as {{r from child}}, but there's almost no information about Joe Shaw at that page. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:13, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and England. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:13, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This fails Wikipedia:Notability. Only one acceptable source exists (if another is found I'll reconsider). Here's a source assessment table:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:IAmHuitzilopochtli
Joe Shaw Online	This is a primary source.	? Unclear. Probably reliable?		✘ No
Digiguide.tv	Not affiliated Joe Shaw.	?	Just a routine database entry.	✘ No
Amazon	Not affiliated Joe Shaw.		Just a routine database entry.	✘ No
Rotten Tomatoes	Not affiliated Joe Shaw.		Just a routine database entry.	✘ No
OpenDMB	Not affiliated Joe Shaw.	?	Just a routine database entry.	✘ No
Gov.uk	Not affiliated Joe Shaw.		Just a routine database entry.	✘ No
Rotten Tomatoes	Not affiliated Joe Shaw.	?	Just a routine database entry.	✘ No
MyLondon	Not affiliated Joe Shaw.	A generally credible news outlet	Just a passing mention.	✘ No
The Mirror (https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Dad%27s+fame+spoiled+my+childhood+but+being+an+actor+was+all+I+ever...-a062135390)	Not affiliated Joe Shaw.	A generally credible news outlet	An entire article.	✔ Yes
Brain Sharper	Not affiliated Joe Shaw.	? Clickbait website with unclear journalistic standards.	No. Just a brief mention alongside the rest of the cast.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

IAmHuitzilopochtli (talk) 00:50, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like it took a lot of effort. McFilet O' Fish Fan (talk) 01:26, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.
- Seems to meet WP:NACTOR with Rhodes, Bad Girls and Murder Investigation Team.
- Seems to also meet WP:BASIC. Looking through proquest there are several different articles, including NYT[1], Chicago Tribune[2], etc [3] that have a few sentences of SIGCOV around his work in Rhodes along with his background. Additionally there is another Daily Mirror article from a different author, several years apart year that is an in-depth interview, but interspersed with independent assertions of facts about the subject [4]. Beyond that there's lots of varying coverage of subject's acting in various performances to sufficiently meet WP:BASIC.

—siro χ o 03:03, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unable to access the additional articles at the moment due to a paywall, but I'm concerned by the extent to which the Daily Mirror's coverage holding up the article, as it's of dubious reliability. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:15, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair. WP:BASIC may not be met at least based on the sources we have so far. Borderline. I think NACTOR holds as verifiable. —siro χ o 18:25, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, WP:BASIC must be met. WP:NACTOR cannot be used as a signifier of notability when WP:BASIC is not met. WP:Notability says, referring to addition criteria such as NACTOR, People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. Thus, Joe Shaw being an actor in a few shows makes it likely that he might have SIGCOV in multiple independent reliable sources. But until those sources can be found, we can't justify this article. IAmHuitzilopochtli (talk) 19:48, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IAmHuitzilopochtli claims BASIC must be met. This is simply not true and is not a policy based argument. See the multitude of BLPs that get by by having a job as seen in afds that invoke wp:prof. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:42, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with @Duffbeerforme, in most cases meeting additional criteria suffices. If there were literally no sources available online or off for someone who met one of the additional criteria for the SNG, that would be a strong case for not including an article about a subject. However, there are clearly a plethora of sources here; we can use the additional criteria as intended, rather than spending hours building up a case for BASIC. —siro χ o 15:48, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per above Salted and then canned meat product (talk) 03:23, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As above table shows, WP:GNG has not been met --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 09:50, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:NACTOR and WP:BASIC with two main roles, and has had main roles in films. The sourcing issue is a problem with retired actor BLP's

2A00:23EE:2869:12E0:F2:9CDF:8D26:241C (talk) 21:44, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:32, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting one more time. No response after the first relisting but I hope more editors will be returning to work on Wikipedia at the end of August and provide some source review this week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:NACTOR with two significant roles and further sourcing has been added since this was listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23EE:18F0:D42:2CF5:82E5:A6F6:A920 (talk) 12:26, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes BASIC and NACTOR. Sourcing could be improved but Shaw seems notable. – Meena • 20:19, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he meets NACTOR + WP:BASIC. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 01:12, 21 August 2023 (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.