Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trevor Eyster

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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:27, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Trevor Eyster

Trevor Eyster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

WP:BLP of an actor, referenced entirely to primary sources and WP:BLOGS with no evidence of reliable source coverage shown at all. He's had one role that seems "major" enough that he would probably qualify for an article if it were sourced properly, but no criterion in NACTOR grants an actor an exemption from having to be properly sourced just because passage of that criterion has been claimed -- an actor gets an article only when passage of an NACTOR criterion can be referenced to reliable sourcing which satisfies WP:GNG. But there's exactly zero acceptable sourcing shown here at all. Bearcat (talk) 14:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: Seems to have been a big deal as a child actor (as "Tim Eyster" and "Timothy Eyster"; he changed his name as an adult actor), and then had a 20-year break in his career. Now as an adult he is only doing short films or tiny roles. I'm seeing him in a lot of Salute Your Shorts reunion or "where are they now" articles [1], and in a Nickelodeon interview book [2]. I haven't searched under "Tim Eyster" or "Timothy Eyster", but that's where his notability currently lies -- in his childhood acting. (PS: That infobox needs a major gutting.) Softlavender (talk) 13:05, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
• keep Passes GNG, notable for his work with Sponge Bob, has plenty of articles in Gnews re: him. L3X1 (distant write) 16:17, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

L3X1, what "work with Sponge Bob" are you referring to? And what "plenty of articles in Gnews re: him"? Softlavender (talk) 16:27, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

post mentioning him mentions him and what he did he is part of the cast L3X1 (distant write) 17:05, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

That's not significant coverage; for all but one it's not even passing mention -- just his name and that's it. Plus only one of those is even a reliable source, and it only mentions his name and nothing else. Plus you still haven't explained "work with Sponge Bob". Softlavender (talk) 18:02, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Sponge Bob is a mistake resulting from the time I read those articles and the time I !voted. L3X1 (distant write) 18:37, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Just to be clear, none of thise links particularly helps. A source has to do more than just mention his name before it counts toward getting him over WP:GNG — he has to be the source's subject, not just a name that gets namechecked in it. Bearcat (talk) 12:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

• http://www.socialitelife.com/photos/90s-heartthrobs-part-5/tim-eyster-then is a short piece about him. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:31, 26 March 2017 (UTC).
  

A blurb (failing WP:SIGCOV) on a blog (failing WP:RS) isn't contributing anything compelling. Bearcat (talk) 15:06, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

• Keep. The article needs help, but I'm going to !vote keep because as a child actor he was certainly notable enough (and he still is sought-after because of that), and notability is not temporary. -- Softlavender (talk) 03:57, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
• DELETE ASAP. This person has been in nothing but short films like 8 minutes long not worth keep a page dedicated to him. This is blatantly clear abuse of the Wikipedia system. I recommend that this article to be deleted immediately.

References

50.73.249.121 (talk) 16:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)Anonymous — 50.73.249.121 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Good grief, that is completely untrue, as evidenced by the link you presented. Softlavender (talk) 03:33, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: ^^ Forgive that I'm somewhat of a Wiki Newbie and may not know how to appropriately go about flagging or saying this, but - upon a little digging, the above user appears to have multiple accounts (Conqueryourpc, LeakySponge, Hwlaster, 2602:306:CC4C:910:E868:6D6E:68DC:DFAA, 50.73.249.121, keeps adding himself to the Salute Your Shorts cast when he was just an extra, added his own award nomination for that role (uncited, deleted multiple times) and then flagged THIS page for deletion, when his own page was speedily deleted, in what appears to be some form of very spirited ... bad faith against Eyster. He has apparently been blocked from editing other pages. --90sNickfan (talk) 21:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator comment)@90sNickfan: While I believe you meant well by posting the above, this is not really the proper venue for such a discussion. The discussion here is about whether this article should be deleted, and the fact that IP 50.73.249.121 is participating by !voting is not disruptive in and of itself because all editors are welcomed to participate in good faith. For reference, an AfD discussion is not a "vote" per se, i.e., the side with more votes does not always "win". The closing administrator will review all of the comments and determine if a consensus has been established based upon which side best presents their position in terms of relevant policies and guidelines. The best way for you to contribute to discussion is to comment on why you feel the article does/does not comply with relevant policies and guidelines. You should avoid commenting on other editors who are participating in the discussion or making claims against those who aren't. I suggest that you take a look at WP:AFD#Contributing to AfD discussions to better familiarize yourself with what goes on in an AfD. There are proper venues for discussing editor behavior and these can be found listed in WP:PNBD. Just pick the relevant noticeboard, and start your discussion there. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree wholeheartedly with the notion of notability not being temporary. Proper sources can, and most certainly should, be found and will add considerably to the necessity of this page. Salute Your Shorts is Eyster's major contribution to show business and claim to notability, but there are other projects he has participated in already, too, that add further credence to keeping this page, working on it, and adding to it for further improvement. --Ericdn (talk) 00:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• Keep: I'm jumping on the "notability is not temporary" bandwagon, but also wish to add that numerous edits have been made since the AfD flag went up to make the article more solid. He does have recent work, which takes him out of the category of being "just a child star." He is active in public appearances, has had recent work on some big-name shows, founded and is active in a non-profit, and is producing and releasing his own documentary project - all of which supplement the notability that he already had. I do wish to see the article more complete and solidified, but I strongly believe it meets WP:GNG. — Erinhayden (talk) 03:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 00:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 00:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 00:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

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.