Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pat Fry (actor)

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. Ignoring the socks, which didn't have convincing arguments anyway. Randykitty (talk) 14:30, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Fry (actor)[edit]

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

WP:BLP, referenced only to IMDb and his own self-published website about himself with no evidence of reliable source coverage about him shown at all, of an actor whose only apparent claim of notability is that he exists. Actors do not, however, get an automatic free pass over WP:NACTOR just because roles are listed in the article -- if you're shooting for "notable because he's had roles", rather than "notable because he was nominated for an Oscar, Emmy or Canadian Screen Award for one or more of his performances", then the notability clinch is not in the list of roles but in the depth of reliable source referencing that can be shown to get him over WP:GNG for the having of roles. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be the subject of media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 16:10, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article of discussion can easily be kept with additional sources. When I created the article, I searched for everything and anything I could find about Pat Fry. Yes, he is not an actor with Oscars for every role he has appeared in. But, he has been confused for many years now with a Formula 1 engineer with the same name. As I did mention, he does play a significant role on Caillou, and if it wasn’t for this, then I wouldn’t have waisted my time creating this page. I think that others can contribute to this page and address the issues being discussed, rather than it being waisted just a few days after it was created. KSportMGNT (talk) 16:40, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Having a role, no matter how "significant" you assert it to be, does not automatically exempt an actor from having to be the subject of enough reliable source coverage in media to clear WP:GNG, and people do not get exempted from having to clear GNG just because they've been confused in the past with other people of the same name either. It is not our responsibility to keep it just because other people might help fix it in the future, because they also might not — if you want the article to be kept, then you're the one whose responsibility it is to demonstrate that enough real notability-supporting media coverage about him exists to make it keepable in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 17:31, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With that said though, if this page does end up being deleted, would you try to help me clear up the confusion about Pat Fry the actor versus Pat Fry the racing engineer? KSportMGNT (talk) 18:59, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the person who created this page said, this actor had a major role on Caillou. My interpretation of the WP:NACTOR rules make me believe that this article should be kept, because the creator has proven that this actor has appeared in multiple films and TV shows of note. Also, the actor has clips of his work on his website, so trying to make believe that the actor's work is nonexistent is a sham. While I agree that more sources need to be found about this person, I believe that there is enough here to keep this article on Wikipedia. Overthemoonandback (talk) 19:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC) — Overthemoonandback (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of KSportMGNT (talk • contribs). [reply]

— Overthemoonandback (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Nobody said that the actor's work is "nonexistent" — that's a strawman you invented in your own head, not a thing anybody in this discussion said or implied at all. But appearing in multiple films and TV shows is not the inclusion test for an actor in and of itself — the inclusion test is not "has been in stuff", but "has received enough reliable source coverage about him in media, independent of his own self-published web presence, to clear WP:GNG for being in stuff". An actor can be in millions of stuffs, and still not get an article if media haven't written about his performances in stuff. Bearcat (talk) 19:37, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat Well that's what you made it sound like when you said that this actor's, "only apparent claim of notability is that he exists." You're the one who made it sound like there was no evidence of his work whatsoever, so don't tell me that that is a strawman that I created because you were the one who made that statement when you nominated this article for deletion. Overthemoonandback (talk) 20:28, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Overthemoonandback: since "has had roles" is not an automatic inclusion freebie for an actor in and of itself, "he exists" is an entirely accurate summary of what the notability claim here actually is. An actor's notability claim does not jump from "notable because he and his work exist" to "has a strong claim of notability for specific reasons" until one of two things happens: (a) he gets nominated for or wins a major (Oscar/Emmy/CSA) award for his acting, or (b) the media start writing content about his acting. Bearcat (talk) 20:47, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I saw that the issue here is about sources, and as of this morning, I saw more sources than it sounds like at the top of the page. The creator of this page has proven that they can find multiple sources for this article to survive on Wikipedia. Plus, I did go into the page history to see the issues that were address about citations, and the person who created this page was able to find proof of this actor's roles on sources other than IMDb. So there is proof that there is more out there about this actor that is not on his website or on IMDb. TVmovieHunter (talk) 14:02, 1 May 2018 (UTC) — Overthemoonandback (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of KSportMGNT (talk • contribs). [reply]

— TVmovieHunter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The only new sources that have been added at all are Rotten Tomatoes and TV.com, which are still IMDb-type directories that still do not constitute evidence of notability. Notability for an actor is newspapers and magazines and books writing editorial content about him, not WP:ROUTINE verification of his roles in directory lists. Bearcat (talk) 17:11, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat To this person's defense, though, take a look at this actress who also appears on Caillou and tell me if this belongs on Wikipedia since she hasn't had any media coverage on her since the early 1990's. Plus, rotten tomatoes is used on many other movie, TV show, and actor/actress pages on Wikipedia, so I'm having a hard time understanding how it is not a reliable source. KSportMGNT (talk) 17:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have a time limit on how recent a person's media coverage has to be — the rule is that media coverage has to exist, not that the datestamp on any of it has to be within the past few years. (Frex, George Washington isn't exactly getting into the papers a whole lot these days, what with having been dead for 200 years and all, but he's still notable.) And you're misunderstanding what's being said about IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes: as long as stronger notability-assisting sources are present to cover off the basic question of notability, you can use IMDB or Rotten Tomatoes as supplementary sources to ensure that the list of roles in his article is complete —even the most famous actors in the world have had some roles (e.g. supporting or minor parts before they got famous) that are hard to source elsewhere, so it's perfectly valid to use IMDb or Rotten Tomatoes to help fill in the gaps. The thing you can't do is say that having IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes profiles makes the actor notable in and of itself, if those are the only sources on offer and there's no GNG-eligible media coverage being shown at all. Bearcat (talk) 18:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The (voice-acting) role on Caillou may be substantial, but one role won't meet WP:ENT, there's no sourcing that suggests GNG is met in the article, and I can't find anything else. I advise the closer to look for WP:DUCK votes. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:09, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Overthemoonandback.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 19:01, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I have struck !votes from blocked socks per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Mz7 (talk) 19:35, 2 May 2018 (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.