Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Dreyfuss

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. I find Safari Scribe's two contributions the most persuasive here. There's enough sentiment for deletion to form a consensus, and some decent policy-oriented opposition to at least one of the keep !votes to allow that consensus to be strong enough to delete. The potential AtD of a merge/redirect was similarly reasonably objected to and therefore isn't open to me as a closer. Daniel (talk) 03:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Dreyfuss[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Per discussion on the talk page, I believe this article on Ben Dreyfuss should be deleted. I have searched for meaningful second-party references to his career or body of work and am coming up short -- he does not seem to be notable as either a creative professional or writer. As far as I can tell, his most significant mentions are minor social media disputes. This article has, as far as I can tell, never included appropriate references and has at times leaned on inappropriate references (ie, personal LinkedIn or Facebook pages). The only current reference is an article about Richard Dreyfuss, not his son Ben.

Since being related to a famous person by itself confers no notability (WP:BIOFAMILY), I think Ben Dreyfuss fails the notability check on his own. Geethree (talk) 13:45, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Journalism, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:13, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Soft keep There are a handful of reliable sources with significant coverage of Ben (not just his father). See here, here, here, here, here, here. I'd say it's just over the threshold for notability but I can see how someone would make a different judgment call. P.S. If the AfD consensus is to delete this article, Emily Dreyfuss should probably go through AfD as well on similar grounds. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:46, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Dclemens1971, I looked at the above sources you presented especially the first and second, which are simply interviews about a family. Others seems also though I didn't continued since first matters. Also we don't say because this person isn't notable, we should go for an article that has nothing to do with this AFD. Remember that journalists are taken to pass entry not only for the interviews they go always, but for coverage of them on a particular writing or style. If we should use those sources which are interviews per WP:INTERVIEW, then, we are incorporating unverifiable source—they says everything about them. — Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  WP:INTERVIEWS highlights the tension in using interviews for verifiability/notability, but the manual of style makes clear that interviews that are conducted by reliable journalistic outlets with robust editorial standards (like NPR, Politico, and NBC) can be considered for use. EDITED TO ADD: I acknowledge that it's a matter of discretion and judgment and that's why my rating remains a soft/weak keep. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He was the editorial director of Mother Jones (magazine) which would possibly not be enough in itself, but is not chopped liver, here he is being interviewed strictly about that. Between that and the various things DClemens mentions above, it should be enough. --GRuban (talk) 03:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- GRuban, I just want to drive in: being such a writer of such magazines is not notability. I will also say you'do read it analyse the source per SE! — Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:05, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per above! Cleanup and sourcing. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 00:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article about an individual that doesn't meet the general notability guidelines for a journalist and actor. For WP:JOURNALIST, the article were less/not supported by any reliable source. Primarily, covering news is not same as you covered in news. The question is, has his writing influenced any style, time, etc like a normal writer? has his journalism been covered per WP:SIGCOV or for a particular incident. The answer per WP:BEFORE is "no". Appearing on few films not as lead doesn't mean the person is notable per WP:NACTOR, there are more or less sources to verify he was cast if not databases like IMDb, etc. While I have analysed this article doesn't meet our notability guidelines for an entry. Likewise the imitator, there is a case of WP:BIOFAMILY, as the article percent were sources from his family, his father, who was a notable actor. In my researches, almost if not all the sources were about his father lining a bit of the son, so, this is a case of WP:INHERITED. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – At this stage, I would delete and add whatever to Richard's page. If over time, he becomes more notable, he may justify his own article. This isn't now. MaskedSinger (talk) 06:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To me, slightly fleshing out Richard's page (and deleting this one) seems like the clear solution here. Most of the links provided above are all about Ben in relation to his father, not about Ben per se. If that is the eventual consensus, I'm happy to make those updates myself. Geethree (talk) 16:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MaskedSinger, there is nothing to add here. Neither going for 23 eye surgeries nor being born by notable parents (WP:INHERITED) doesn't mean we should redirect or merge. Tis article is credibly have no context, sources that analysed his characters or directing, any award?, what cognitive impact he has made. I don't see much of his parents role here . As a matter of fact, let's judge it in it's own accord! — Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 08:54, 27 April 2024 (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.