Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Fantini

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. Fails the GNG badly, and arguably fails WP:ENT as well, with only one significant role in a notable series (the Edison Twins). The rest are minor roles, or non notable productions, or voice acting, for which he has received zero attention apart from being mentioned by name is cast lists. Keep arguments are not convinving, delete arguments are more solid. Fram (talk) 08:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Fantini

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

Apparently most notable for several guest spots as "Adam Berman" on Danger Bay, he does not meet either WP:BASIC or WP:ENT. Google searches reveal database and wiki-mirror hits but no notable coverage. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find anything resembling reliable sourcing. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 15:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment his career as film and television actor appears to meet WP:ENT with major roles in several films and 38 episodes of The Edison Twins series, among others... and then his voice artist work adds to meeting WP:ENT with 13 episodes of Garbage Pail Kids, 13 episodes of ALF: The Animated Series, and 13 episodeds of Sylvanian Families, among others. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:ENT is intended to supply guidelines for situations in which a personality is likely to have reliable sourcing, right? I don't dispute that this individual exists and has had some roles, I just can't find any coverage of him. I'd be happy to change my vote to keep (of course) if anybody else has more success finding actual sources. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well... the body of his work is verifiable in reliable sources... for example: [1][2][3][4][5][6] He need not neccesarily meet the GNG if it can be determined his work meeting ENT can be otherwise verified. While most certainly nice for writing a comprehensive article, wide and in-depth coverage is not an absolute mandate if his notability can be determined for his body of work and not instead for wide coverage of the individual, as ENT encourages finding those reliable sources (as above) confirming his works. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide some kind of policy backing for what you're asserting here? To say that WP:ENT even implies your conclusion above seems far-fetched to me, at best. It says very plainly up front "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." There is no dispute that the subject here meets one or more of the criteria in WP:ENT, but it is unclear that he meets WP:GNG as a result. WP:ENT is essentially indicated to predict notability, not guarantee it. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My argument is made per policy WP:V and consensus reached through discussions and AFDs and talkpages and noticeboards for several years. ENT and GNG are not exclusionary. Meeting one OR the other can be enough to allow consideration of notability. An actor with a brief career might recieve wide coverage in multiple reliable sources and merit inclusion through the GNG even though his short career might fail ENT. That does not exclude him. An actor might have an career that spans decades and have "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions", and merit inclusion through meeting ENT. Even if he otherwise maintains a low profile and fails GNG by not having wide coverage in popular press, that "low profile" does not exclude him. One need not meet both guidelines. ENT is no more predictive than is the GNG itself, as guideline well acknowledges that not eveything that is notable makes headlines.
To expand (hope folks do not see this as TLDR), guideline at Wikipedia:Notability (people) specifically allow acceptance of notability for WP:Verified assertions without always demanding the topic must also meet the GNG. For instance, WP:ANYBIO allows that an assertion of winning a notable award or receiving multiple nominations for such awards shows notability... as long as the assertion is properly WP:Verified in reliable sources. It does not also demand meeting GNG. WP:ATH (under discussion) has long accepted per consensus that performing at a professional level in a major sport is acceptable in allowing inclusion. It does not also demand meeting GNG. WP:PROF states that someone could be "notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources." WP:ENT allows that notability may be considered if the actor has "had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" but does not mandate that the subject must also meet the GNG.
And again, while all guideline criteria absolutely require meeting policy WP:V, it is no where mandated that a topic "must" also meet the predictive GNG. It is the verification of any assertion in reliable sources that is mandated... and notability does not always depend the depth of coverage of the topic or the individual. So with respects, a topic missing out on meeting the GNG is not the final nail in the coffin. Notability is not always a contest to see who is more popular in press coverage. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Darkwind (talk) 01:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can only verify in databases... need secondary sources to meet Wikipedia's guidelines. Arskwad (talk) 07:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, we don't. Primary sources are fine, the credits of these series, if there is no possible reason to doubt the information. Dream Focus 15:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very notable voice actor, obviously. Look at the list of things this person has been in! Dream Focus 15:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. More notable than a breadbox. The relative notability can be questioned, but it meets the standards to stay here. tedder (talk) 06:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my discussion above. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ENT. The mere fact we can "look at the list of things this person has been in!" does not actually mean anything. He could have been an extra in all of these movies for all we know. WP:ENT is clear that an actor needs to have significant roles in notable films. Provide a reliable, verifiable, independent source that he has had multiple, significant roles in notable films. SnottyWong talk 00:57, 20 May 2010 (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.