Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Sherman (actor)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 no consensus, default to keep. Jayjg (talk) 02:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bob Sherman (actor)[edit]
- Bob Sherman (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable actor, per WP:ENT. --SquidSK (1MC•log) 19:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment author claims notability due to "significant cult following" on the basis of one interview on a Sandbaggers fan wesite. --SquidSK (1MC•log) 19:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IMDB entry on Bob Sherman: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0792384/ He's been in lots of shows, and the Sandbaggers has a large cult following, even if you've never heard of it. Now please stop listing for deletion. --Morse321 20:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - passes WP:ENT (despite claim by nominator) due to appearance in multiple roles over many years, including notable movies and television shows. Article needs expanding with reliable sources, but there should be material out there to work with. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails WP:ENT. Just because the show has a large cult following does not mean this actor does. --Fbifriday (talk) 21:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if it you think it fails WP:ENT on (2), Bob Sherman passes on point (1), because he's been in lots of shows (reference). Morse321 (talk) 18:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ENT, part 1, states (in part) "...significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." I looked over http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0792384/ his credits at IMDB], and they do not satisfy that requirement. In his time since Sandbaggers, he's had many minor roles ("Ambassador's aide," "Pentagon Senator," "Policeman #10"), including the few notable productions he was in (Superman IV, Little Shop of Horrors, Hellboy). --SquidSK (1MC•log) 19:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We look past the minor roles, as even the most notable of actors have had minor roles... its called paying bills. Not to spout WP:OSE, but a notable like John Travolta has done some quite forgetable commercial spots before he hit the bigs... actor Bill Pullman has done a great number of small roles in forgettable films, right alongside his bigger roles in major films... and even such as John Wayne did some early crappola before he made his mark. What is to be considered in judging notability for this actor is his overall career and his 50+ years of coverage in reliable sources. And yes... an actor who's career started in the 1950's will certainly have had many minor roles. That is not the point nor the issue. As you do point out, he has been part of notable productions even as he has been part of minor. Notability is not to be judged by the least of what an actor does, but by the best of his works and the scope of his career... and the coverage to match. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My intention was not to imply that performing in minor roles or in non-notable productions negated the notability "accrued" by performing in significant roles in notable productions. I was pointing out that many of his roles since The Sandbaggers have been minor. I supposed it is a somewhat flawed arguement now... --SquidSK (1MC•log) 20:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, not flawed really... its just my thought that the argument concentrated on the negative rather than the positive. My own experience as an actor is unless one is part of the top 1% that are able to set their own rate, one takes the roles that pays the bills. If some are major roles, then wonderful... if some are minor... well at least the rent gets paid that month. I agree that he has had lessor TV roles since Sandbaggers... but since that time he has also had major roles in several TV films and mini-series and feature films. All bricks in the building. You'll note that in my current expansion of the article I did not include the minor roles in the major films. Still a work-in-progress though.... Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My intention was not to imply that performing in minor roles or in non-notable productions negated the notability "accrued" by performing in significant roles in notable productions. I was pointing out that many of his roles since The Sandbaggers have been minor. I supposed it is a somewhat flawed arguement now... --SquidSK (1MC•log) 20:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We look past the minor roles, as even the most notable of actors have had minor roles... its called paying bills. Not to spout WP:OSE, but a notable like John Travolta has done some quite forgetable commercial spots before he hit the bigs... actor Bill Pullman has done a great number of small roles in forgettable films, right alongside his bigger roles in major films... and even such as John Wayne did some early crappola before he made his mark. What is to be considered in judging notability for this actor is his overall career and his 50+ years of coverage in reliable sources. And yes... an actor who's career started in the 1950's will certainly have had many minor roles. That is not the point nor the issue. As you do point out, he has been part of notable productions even as he has been part of minor. Notability is not to be judged by the least of what an actor does, but by the best of his works and the scope of his career... and the coverage to match. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ENT, part 1, states (in part) "...significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." I looked over http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0792384/ his credits at IMDB], and they do not satisfy that requirement. In his time since Sandbaggers, he's had many minor roles ("Ambassador's aide," "Pentagon Senator," "Policeman #10"), including the few notable productions he was in (Superman IV, Little Shop of Horrors, Hellboy). --SquidSK (1MC•log) 19:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if it you think it fails WP:ENT on (2), Bob Sherman passes on point (1), because he's been in lots of shows (reference). Morse321 (talk) 18:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per meeting of WP:ENT [1] and over 50 years of coverage in reliable sources [2] What this stub needs is expansion and sourcing... a surmountable propblem... not deletion. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment By the way, he was also pretty notable for his work on the stage, and also as a playwright. He was notable enough to warrant an obit in The Times when he died. (reference). --Morse321 (talk) 00:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent point. A well-rounded individual. Thank you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note I have begun expanding and sourcing the stub. Any assistance is welcome. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep He has had plenty of roles in notable works, over a rather long career. Dream Focus 01:17, 5 December 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.