Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Whalen

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. By a nose count it's 3-2, but even the keep arguments seem to acknowledge that the sourcing is shaky at best. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:02, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Whalen

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

Thorough Google searches yield nothing close to resembling a reliable source to establish notability; obvious open and shut case. —swpb^T 12:33, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 12:35, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 12:35, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:52, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Clearly a character actor with multiple credits, and typecasting does not preclude notability. I'm no fan of horror movies, and it appears this guy is usually cast as a villain, but it looks like has been a prolific genre actor as well as showing up a few mainstream efforts. Here is what I have found. Montanabw^(talk) 18:03, 4 August 2016 (UTC):[reply]
Could someone else please re-review the above links to determine if even one of them is both a reliable source and offers significant coverage? A first look suggests none of them come close, but maybe someone will find some hint of reliability for one of the few sources that do give significant coverage. (The ones that say "passing mention" can clearly be disregarded.) Right now, no sources meeting the criteria have been specifically identified, and until they are, there is no basis for the establishment of notability. As we all know (generously assuming that we've read WP:GNG), no number of invalid sources, not ten, not a hundred, add up to a valid source for the purpose of establishing notability. —swpb^T 19:09, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Any of these standing alone, won't get to notability, I agree; but together they might, as in some cases, multiple sources can "stack" - We have multiple sources, and they are independent of the subject. Some are clearly reliable (NYT), some are of limited reliability (TMZ) and some we just don't know enough yet (the first 5 listed). The horror film genre is, most likely, not going to be covered in Variety, so there is room to discuss if some of these above sources are considered valid within that genre. I really can't answer that question and it would be worth pinging the appropriate wikiproject for input. TMZ is a tabloid source, so I wouldn't use it to discuss his personal life, but like all tabloids, it is generally reliable for the proposition that he was in a "Got Milk?" commercial and had a bit part in Men in Black. That said, the New York Times is not an "invalid" source; three passing mentions may not be enough, standing alone, but if the other sources are valid, I think it gets us there. I'll see if I can ping a couple appropriate wikiprojects for input. Montanabw^(talk) 03:45, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Valid sources (ones that meet the explicit criteria) stack; invalid ones do not. Ping who you want, but remember: we need reliability and significant coverage in the same source, and it needs to be demonstrated--saying that some unspecified source might qualify carries no weight. Having some reliable sources (NYT) that trivially mention the subject, plus some significant discussion in unreliable sources, doesn't get the subject even the tiniest bit closer to passing GNG. "Independence" is necessary but not in any way sufficient for reliability, as you well know. —swpb^T 13:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as non-notable actor. Quis separabit? 20:14, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable - just got a post of his on my FB timeline, shared by a friend, and wondered who the heck he was. Checking here (my usual first point of call) I find this. I wonder if they are related. Is there a publicity push going on? He's a minor actor. That doesnt qualify him for a WP article.CalzGuy (talk) 14:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I didn't recognize his name at first, but I knew who he was when I saw his credits. I did some searches, and I found a few hits beyond what Montanabw listed. He's certainly not famous, but he's had a few prominent supporting roles, such as Roach from The People Under the Stairs. Frogurt from Lost was also a somewhat popular character, as evidenced by [1] and [2] from Vulture.com. His career as a character actor also gets write-ups: [3] from KQED and [4] from KillerReview.com (which I would consider a reliable source). There's also [5] from Entertainment Weekly, which places him on a list of best performances in a Michael Bay production for his "Got Milk?" ad. I admit the sourcing is a bit light, but it's still enough for me to say that he satisfies WP:NACTOR. It's easy to source that he's been in more than 90 films and TV shows. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The KQED source, and maybe the EW source, count for something; the others don't. The Vulture articles do not mention Whalen (the character != the actor). The KillerReview.com piece identifies itself as a blog (which apparently anyone can create on that site), and is attributed to a handle rather than an identifiable author; neither factor suggests reliability. The EW source is pretty minimal coverage. Although I'm not ready to change my "delete" position, I thank you for making an actual effort to find valid sources that meet the criteria. —swpb^T 12:39, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, like I said, the sourcing is a bit light. KillerReviews.com is not a source I use often, but I think the interviews (at least) are fine. "Bronxtko" is a staff writer there, and, I'm not 100% sure, but I think his real name is Matt Boiselle, per this. If so, I think that makes his work more usable, as Boiselle is a staff writer at several other, more obviously reliable sites, such as Dread Central, which is listed at WP:FILM/R. Some reviews of The People Under the Stairs discuss his acting: [6] from HorrorTalk.com and [7] from DVD Talk. Not exactly a write-up from Variety, I know, it shows there's some degree of interest in his career. If I hadn't recognized him, I probably wouldn't have spent so much time searching for sources, but I think prolific character actors satisfy WP:NACTOR even if there roles aren't as famous as the lead. He's not Harry Dean Stanton, but, really, who is? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:37, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I can respect that position, and, moreover, the effort you've put into searching. To me, it doesn't add up to notability, but there is a valid case there. —swpb^T 12:41, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:55, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jujutacular (talk) 00:57, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I'll try to find time to look into this, but my knee-jerk reaction is that there's no way he's not a "keep". I'll see what I can find if I can get some free time... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:14, 20 August 2016 (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.