Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Scott Harris

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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Scott Harris[edit]

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

WP:BLP of an 11 year old child actor. Much of the article is trivia about non-professional work, anecdotal statements/reflections (it appears to have been written by his mother), and speculation about "plans in the works" for his future career. Stripping that out it becomes clear that this young chap does not (yet) meet the notability criteria for actors. He's appeared in a few shorts, the odd episode of TV series but certainly nothing which qualifies as "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances or other productions". He may well qualify for a page in a few more years, but not now. Nancy ^talk 13:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Since I made this nomination the article's creator has stripped it right back so that now it only contains Harris's professional appearances however the notability concerns remain.Nancy ^talk 16:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this actor. Joe Chill (talk) 16:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This actor is covered in two industry databases (IMDB and InBaseline), two television network Websites (USA Network, FOX Network), two Wikipedia articles (House Big Baby and Young Artist Awards 2009), and the official Young Artist Awards Website. He has principal credits in two major feature films (Angels & Demons, Kissing Strangers) and guest or recurring roles on two popular TV shows (House and Little Monk) Dharris1844 (talk) 17:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC) — Dharris1844 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: Would just like to point out that (probably) the only reason that DHarris has commented at this AFD is because I suggested that she should so whilst the SPA tag is technically correct it should perhaps not be endowed with all the usual negative connotations. I'd also add that considering the utterly inhumane treatment the poor woman has been subjected to here (and on the talk page of the article) I'm really regretting directing her to this page. She's a newbie, she made the article in good faith, OK so it likely doesn't meet WP:ENT but that is no reason not to treat her with some respect and understanding. Nancy ^talk 09:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - article was exclusive creation of User:Dharris1844 a single purpose account devoted exclusively to editing this article. This is advertising spam. Racepacket (talk) 21:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong Keep~~: This information could be submitted by anyone; it is all factual and impartial. Because this is my first submission, you want it deleted? Everyone has to start somewhere. I was urged by others in the industry to create this article. If you won't allow me to create it, there easily could be many others who would love to create it in their name. Dharris1844 (talk) 24:26, 8 November 2009
- It's because your son fails WP:ENT. Joe Chill (talk) 22:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- He doesn't fail WP:ENT. He meets the criteria. He has multiple strong credits and a very large fan base. Videos of his screen and stage performances get a thousand hits or more a day on YouTube. He is ranked among the top three boys in his age for dramatic acting on the InBaseline Studio Systems database. He receives a large volume of fan mail. Dharris1844 (talk) 24:41, 8 November 2009
  - His major roles are in non-notable films and you haven't shown proof that he has a large fanbase. What don't you understand about no double voting? Joe Chill (talk) 22:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - House is rated among the top TV shows on the networks. Monk is, also. Angels & Demons was a blockbuster film. Dharris1844 (talk) 24:50, 8 November 2009
    - Those are minor roles. Joe Chill (talk) 22:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - So Principal, Guest Star and Series Regular are considered minor roles? Dharris1844 (talk) 24:53, 8 November 2009
      - House: Two episodes. Little Monk: One episode. Frank TV: One episode. Men of a Certain Age: One episode. The First Impression: Only nominated. Non-notable film. Zeke and Luthor: One episode. Harry Putter and the Sorcerer's Phone: Extra. Kissing strangers: Non-notable film. Angels and Demons: "Vatican Choirboy" sounds like the name of an extra. "1.Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Joe Chill (talk) 23:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - He was not an extra in Angels & Demons. He was a principal, got paid principal wages, and earned his SAG Taft-Hartley on the strength of that single credit. Paperwork can be produced to prove it. Dharris1844 (talk) 24:53, 8 November 2009
        Fine, but that is one major role in a notable film so he still fails WP:ENT. Joe Chill (talk) 23:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        So major TV credits don't count, only films? Dharris1844 (talk) 24:53, 8 November 2009
        They do count, but one or two episodes isn't major. Joe Chill (talk) 23:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        What is the magic number? Three? Ten? Thirty? Dharris1844 (talk) 24:53, 8 November 2009
        A major role is a main character throughout the series. Joe Chill (talk) 23:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        The role of Jimmy in Little Monk is a main character, repeating throughout the series. Jimmy is Monk's best friend. Dharris1844 (talk) 24:53, 8 November 2009
        That is one episode. Joe Chill (talk) 23:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        That is two episodes: #1 and #2. Dharris1844 (talk) 24:53, 8 November 2009
        Which doesn't help also. Joe Chill (talk) 23:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Look. User:Dharris1844 needs to read up on the rules -- this is not Chicago, you only get to vote once. Your user name contains "harris" which suggests that perhaps you are related to Andy Scott Harris. Wikipedia has important conflict of interest rules. It is one thing if a stranger is so interested in Andy Scott Harris that he/she writes an article about him. But we don't want people with a conflict of interest to start articles about their relatives. I hope that I am wrong, but that is what I suspect has happened here. Racepacket (talk) 23:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        So if I had chosen a user name that didn't have Harris in it, we wouldn't be having this discussion? I am new to Wikipedia. When I was asked by industry experts to put an article on Andy in Wikipedia because of his rising popularity, I tried my hand at it for the first time. No, I am not a professional Wikipedia expert. I was simply trying to do the right thing, ignorant though I may be of the manifold rules. If you want someone else to submit the article under their user name, would you still be vetoing it? If so, tell me what exactly he has to have in order to get the article accepted. Dharris1844 (talk) 24:53, 8 November 2009
        I would be having the same discussion no matter what be cause he fails WP:ENT. Joe Chill (talk) 00:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Then by all means, delete the page. Forgive me for not understanding all these points. I am just an ordinary person having their very first experience with Wikipedia and failing miserably. I don't need this level of grief. Goodbye to Wikipedia. Have fun doing your Wikipedia police work. Dharris1844 (talk) 24:53, 8 November 2009

Delete appears to fail WP:ENT. Minor appearances don't really cut it, and none of the cited work seems to move beyond a guest appearance. (Also, note that IMDB isn't really a reliable source). Bfigura ^(talk) 02:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP-seems pretty NPOV and neutral, despite it's author.Heironymous Rowe (talk) 02:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's about notability at this point. Joe Chill (talk) 02:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think he passes that criteria as well, vote still to keep. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 03:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - We should not let the WP:COI violation slide. The content has been 100% written by User:Dharris1844, the parent of the article's subject. Racepacket (talk) 04:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - COI is a reason for concern about NPOV. It isn't a reason to delete material if the material is good. We don't act punitively like that. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I am not going to take the time to research and verify the claims made by his mother to see how many scenes the son had included vs. were left on the cutting room floor. The original version of the article had a lot of material that was unsourced and only a mother could write. Perhaps it would have been better if this had been PRODed. Racepacket (talk) 04:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        True but I fail to see its relevance to my statement. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I am not sure how to evaluate this. In Angels & Demons, Harris had an "uncredited role." The mother uses the IMDB as a "source," but since it is user generated content, I question whether this is within WP:RS.
        Agree again. But I don't see how that's relevant to the point about letting a COI violation "slide". JoshuaZ (talk) 05:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I also agree with you, JoshuaZ. My point is that someone other than the SPA editor with the COI should clean up and verify the article. Nancy correctly spotted a problem, but instead of PRODing the article, Nancy allowed mom to fix it. How do we know that end-product is well sourced or even true? IMDB content is user submitted. In theory, mom could add son as an uncredited actor in a "blockbuster movie" with scenes left on the cutting room floor. Once IMDB allows the submission to be posted, mom could then use it as a reference for her son, and then use the Wikipedia article to gain credibility with the "industry professionals." Racepacket (talk) 06:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete Doesn't meet WP:BIO. Doesn't meet WP:ENT. Claims otherwise are very hard to take seriously. Given that his scenes in Angels and Demons were deleted it is hard to claim that he has a major enough role. The general lack of reliable third party sourcing moves me to favor deletion. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete due to the failure of the article to pass WP:ENT and WP:BIO. Ironholds (talk) 12:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to fail WP:ENT; the COI (which, personally, doesn't seem to affect tha article, which is relatively short & neutral) is not a valid reason for deletion. Giant Snowman 15:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability. Article can be recreated at a later date if the subject then meets WP:ENT or WP:N. Karanacs (talk) 21:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bfigura and others. Doesn't meet WP:ENT. GlassCobra 03:34, 12 November 2009 (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.