Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Doherty (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 keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:07, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Doherty (actor)

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. This article was previously deleted via BLPPROD. GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 00:35, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not saying that in one year's time, he won't meet our notability guidelines. But I do agree that, right now, a co-lead role on The Lodge (TV series) and a very supporting role in Descendants 2 do not get this subject past WP:NACTOR, and the available sourcing for this subject does not meet what would be necessary for an exception under WP:BASIC. This is a perfect example of an article that should have been created and incubated in Draftspace for some time before even considering a move into Mainspace. (This one is also YA advertisement for why we need WP:ACTRIAL so badly, but that's a side issue...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:24, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:59, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:59, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP- Part of the article for biographies on wikipedia mentions the following of the entertainer. I just looked and Thomas Doherty has 1.1 million followers on Instagram. I would think that is rather significant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KPEPVPAP (talk • contribs) 16:50, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also- when the article was previously deleted, it was an entry that was seriously a couple sentences long without any sources. It has vastly been improved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KPEPVPAP (talk • contribs) 16:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Eh- in comparison to other disney stars who have Wikipedia pages, it would seem odd to delete this. The role of Harry hook in descendants 2 is a very significant one with quite the following. Especially considering that descendants 2 is extremely popular, breaking records for viewership and also with songs that are charting, including toe that Doherty is a big part of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:547:C300:97C7:D8BE:9E05:AB08:B106 (talk) 16:08, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The above two posters need to review Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, specifically the "Google test" section – popularity is not a legitimate way to assess notability. What determines "notability" in Wikipedia terms is significant independent coverage in Reliable sources (e.g. not "teen mags" or "gossip tabloids"...), as per WP:BASIC. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:35, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Pointing out what posters should do, does not seem to legitimize why this page should be taken down. Tried the google test, Thomas Doherty is the first individual to come up and there any many things out there about him. I also previewed the Wikipedia pages of other similar celebrities and if this is a candidate to removal then there are many more that should be removed as well. If the concern is sources, the article includes sources from a variety of reliable publications- not "teen mags". Dance Spirit is a reputable source for those involved in the dance world http://www.dancespirit.com/. Edinburgh Evening News is a newspaper related to the Scotsman in Scotland. The MGA Academy of Performing Arts is a world recognized performing arts school. BBC News also a reputable source. Vogue and Sports Illustrated Kids- though they might not be as highly revered as others, they certainly are no Teen Gossip Magazines. Also, Billboard and Apple Music among others. Surely, if these sources are not considered legitimate then most celebrity pages on Wikipedia are far worse. I also recognize that popularity and notability are not the same thing, but the Wikipedia guidelines suggest that the person has a strong following and 1.1 million on instagram does seem like a strong following. That being said, with this overview of sources, how can one even think that Thomas Doherty is not notable. I have read over the arguments section, I am providing valid proof with more than valid sources, so deleting such an article about this individual seems to not make sense. Clearly, if it should be deleted then the person who proposes such needs to come up with some really strong arguments with evidence to support these arguments as the evidence seems to stack up against them. Personal opinion does not have the same weight as the sources that I mentioned here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:547:C300:97C7:30B7:6268:5CD2:C6E9 (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2017 (UTC) — Example (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. DrStrauss talk 08:56, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 05:10, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets #1 of WP:NACTOR as had two significant roles. Could also satisfy #2 but that's debatable. Also meets WP:GNG with sources in article.--Pontificalibus (talk) 10:19, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to meet WP:NACTOR, and the only del comment is saying the article 'could' be notable later. I see no reason to delete this article. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 13:52, 13 September 2017 (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.