Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Forbes (2nd nomination)

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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Forbes[edit]

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

Unable to find any reliable sources independent of the subject to sufficiently establish notability for this unreferenced WP:BLP. He has had numerous bit parts over the years (and unable to verify most of them) but WP:ENTERTAINER specifies significant roles. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. J04n(talk page) 00:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 00:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced living person and as per non. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Markiewp (talk) 06:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment His film and television roles can be verified to the projects themselves.... and this actor's body of work over 30 years does seem to meet the requirements of WP:ENT, as named roles as characters are usually significant to the plot and storyline of these various projects. More toward the point, 3 episodes of Doctor Who and 11 episodes of Strike It Rich!, 2 episodes of The Hello Girls, and 2 episodes of Hollyoaks show significance of his characters for at least those series. "Significant roles in notable productions" is not intended to limit to only series' leads, but rather to eliminate those actors who have minor throw-away roles that only merit a descriptive, such as "deliveryman #2" or "man in restaurant". So let's consider if recurring named characters are significant to plot and storyline... And then we have his work in theater to consider, and the stage reviews which give critical acclaim to his work. Significant roles in notable productions? He appears to qualify. But yes, digging through the many false positives caused by this man's common name will be difficult... but does that mean it should or cannot not be done? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment I do not know how relevent the AFD discussion from 2005 is... as this particular article was created in 2007, and the earlier one by this name might well have been about someone else entirely. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Question Why was the first nomination from 2005 never closed? Or are AFD "closings" a more recent innovation? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - We are much more a beaucracy than we were in 2005.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another Z-grade nobody. I'm a more notable actor than this flunky, and yet you don't see me trying to create an article for myself just because one doesn't already exist! These people are creating pages for themselves, which is nothing short of using and abusing WP for self-promotion. Laval (talk) 08:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you share how it is you decided that the 2007 article author John Shaw[1] is actually Andrew Forbes? Or if unable to show that, then perhaps you might share how John Shaw writing an article about someone else is self-promotion? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Considering how Jon Shaw only has one edit (aside from a sandbox edit) and that was to create the bulk of this article, it is an excellent indication that this created by the actor himself. Laval (talk) 09:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep technically he doesn't meet ENT, but Schmidt makes a rational argument...---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, Schmidt's arguments are more based upon a rigid inclusiveness that is often at odds with Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia policy is what is at issue here, not Schmidt's talent for rallying support to his cause. Laval (talk) 09:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 03:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this is still a WP:BLP without a source other than IMDb. J04n(talk page) 03:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Without significant coverage in reliable sources, subject does not meet WP:GNG. Without significant acting roles (if IMDB is accurate, his longest stint appears to be 11 episodes in 1986-87 on Strike it Rich, a show which itself does not have a wikipedia page), subject does not meet WP:ENT. As such, delete. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no references. The very little work he's done over the past few decades doesn't merit an article in my opinion. (I realise the [unreferenced] filmography lists 20 different TV series this man has starred in but each of them is 1-3 episodes. Not worth keeping. Also, I quickly glanced over the google search results and didn't see anything which tied all of the listed tv appearances to Forbes. --tb240904 ^{Talk Contribs} 00:17, 25 August 2010 (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.