Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ray Girardin

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Girardin

[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)

actor who has only ever held minor character appearances, no coverage and almost all results are for people who are not him. Praxidicae (talk) 19:22, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NACTOR: "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films". IMDB gives him above-the-fold billing in at least the following films: Hollywood Man (where he's billed third), Love Affair (1994 film), Loverboy (1989 film). Though article definitely needs some work in terms of sourcing. Colin M (talk) 20:09, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just because those articles exist on WP, doesn't mean that they should but merely having been in them doesn't satisfy WP:IRS in my opinion and I would expect if he had been a top billed cast member in multiple notable films, there would be an array of in depth coverage of him, but there's not. Praxidicae (talk) 23:09, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, WP:NACTOR says "significant roles in multiple notable films". I interpret "significant" to be a lower standard than "top billed". In my mind, a significant role should have more than a couple lines of dialog, and the character should probably have a name (rather than, say, "Frightened inmate #2"), but it doesn't necessarily mean they're playing a main character, or that the actor's name would be on the poster, or that they'd do press for the movie. (This is just my interpretation. Unfortunately, WP:NACTOR doesn't have any kind of footnote defining "significant", and I couldn't find much discussion of the term in that page's talk page archives.) Colin M (talk) 23:42, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My point still remains that he lacks coverage which is the ultimate determination of notability. Praxidicae (talk) 23:48, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article lacks any reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. To address Colin M's comments, what precisely is "above-the-fold billing?" on IMDB (as a 20+ year contributor to IMDB, I'd love to know!), what evidence is there that the subject meets the same, and what notability guideline does such explicitly satisfy? The only one of those three movies in which the subject had a noteworthy role was Hollywood Man, and whether one can call a film that doesn't even make Box Office Mojo's site a "notable film" is questionable at best. I want a great deal more to handwave away the GNG than such a shaky interpretation of NACTOR. Ravenswing 01:00, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to cases where his name appears in the abbreviated cast listing on the movie's main page (which IMDB labels "Cast overview, first billed only"), rather than having to click "See full cast". See this page for an example. The notability guideline that I'm claiming is satisfied is WP:NACTOR, as I wrote in the beginning of my vote. Colin M (talk) 01:07, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ummmm ... "first billed only" isn't any indication of relative importance; it's simply the order in which the credits roll, which as we all know is often in order of appearance, for instance. You're genuinely stipulating that being in the first (undefined) credited X of the cast list, absent any genuine knowledge of the movie so presented and the performer's role therein, explicitly (I didn't choose the word as a throwaway) satisfies NACTOR? Ravenswing 19:26, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeesh, sorry, I didn't know the IMDB cast section followed the ordering in the end credits. Thanks for the information, but also WP:CHILLOUT. Colin M (talk) 19:56, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ran him though a Proquest news archive search, and can't find anything no sources, no notability. (There was a notable Detroit journalist who became chief of police by this name, who ought to have an article.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:04, 4 March 2019 (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.