Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bronson Page

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.--Kchase T 17:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Bronson Page

Bronson Page (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable actor whos credits consist of "Boy" and "NATO Officer," article was started by subject's domestic partner Samuel Kensinger Francis (who was returning the favor that Bronson did by writing his) so WP:COI by proxy. Otto4711 18:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The 'non-notable' acting in Blue Sky was notable enough to qualify me for SCREEN ACTOR'S GUILD eligibility, and give me a significant part (especially for a young actor) in a choreographed scene with JESSICA LANGE who won an OSCAR for the role. Are we to delete every actor's first films? IMDB certainly finds sufficient reason for inclusion. The suggestion that my entry is an invalid 'favor' because my domestic partner edited it is not only ludicrous, it's insulting. Are wives, husbands, friends not allowed to contribute? This edit seems unfairly, personally motivated. Who are you, editor? - Bronson Page

• Who am I? I'm just a little girl from Little Rock, who lived on the wrong side of the tracks. But I stand by this nomination. If in future you continue to get acting work or your rock opera gets produced and there are multiple independent third-party sources to that effect, I will very much enjoy reading the resulting article. As for having supposedly gone around with you before, to the best of my knowledge I'd never heard of you before today and have never encountered you. Otto4711 02:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom (except for the speculation at the end). The Screen Actors Guild is an AFL-CIO affiliated Labor Union with over 120,000 members. Membership does little to assert notability. You're right, every actor does have a first film: That does nothing to change the fact that not every actor will be included at Wikipedia. Please see WP:BIO; the section about actors isn't very far down, and this entry clearly fails those criteria. Note, please, that Wikipedia is not IMDB; we already have IMDB for that. Finally, the above rant only validates the WP:COI concerns raised. Nothing here is meant to suggest that you won't one day be a truely notable actor; when you are, no doubt someone else will go through the trouble of writing an article about you. I wish you luck. -- Antepenultimate 01:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't have raised an objection, except for the fact that I've gone 'round with this user before. So before you dismiss this as 'rant', know that my argument, however passionate, has grounds. 'Notable' seems a subjective term here that needs clarification. Do you have clarification for 'notable' as it is used in Wikipedia?

Per your own description of notability which is helpful: "Other authors, scholars, and journalists have decided whether to give attention to a topic, and in their expertise have researched and checked the information about it." So IMDB's research and confirmation of my information isn't enough then? Please reply. Thanks.

• Comment. Firstly, Notability is one of the cornerstones of Wikipedia. Not long ago, I also argued over the percieved objective nature of Notability here, but the more I poke around the numerous guidelines, and the more I experience the day-to-day operation of Wikipedia, the more I have come to respect those guidelines. For an overview of notability guidelines as it applies to people, please see Wikipedia:Notability (people). It includes very specific criteria for actors. Second: IMDB is a webpage, not an author, scholar, or journalist. To give you a personal example of why IMDB is never used as a test for notability: Friends of mine in college produced a no-budget film, based on a video game. This film can be found on IMDB[1]; furthermore, as a result of this listing, every single person in that film also has a listing as well. Now, these are my friends, so believe me when I say: They are not actors. And their inclusion at IMDB does not signify anything beyond the fact that they managed to pull together a film that has sold a couple of hundred copies at various gaming conventions. I hope this has settled some of your concerns. If you would like to discuss this further, I would be happy to do so at my talk page, so as to not further clutter this AfD debate. -- Antepenultimate 02:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Can't find how to talk to you. Fine. I'm resolved with deletion. I'd delete it myself if your bot didn't keep recovering it. However, nice casting of aspersions on OTTO4711's part, making basis for deletion that my DP and I were 'doing favors' for each other by contributing. No, that's not subjective at all.

The reason the article should be deleted is not that your DP wrote it. The reason the article should be deleted is that the subject of the article does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (people) guidelines. There are specific criteria for actors that establish notability, specifically: "Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions. Notability can be determined by:

• Multiple features in popular culture publications such as Vogue, GQ, Elle, FHM or national newspapers
• A large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following
• An independent biography5
• Name recognition
• Commercial endorsements"

You simply do not meet the criteria for notability for an actor. As a completely separate issue, your contributing to an article about yourself is a clear conflict of interest and a violation of the autobiography guidleine. Your DP contributing to an article about himself is a clear conflict of interest and autobiography problem. Either of you writing about the other is also a conflict of interest. Neither WP:COI nor WP:AUTO is in and of itself grounds for deleting an article but it is a valid concern to raise about an article, and your and Sam's outbursts, ill-feeling and spurious attribution of bad faith to me as a result of properly tagging your articles is a perfect illustration of why individuals should not be writing articles about themselves or their loved ones. Otto4711 05:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Clearly fails the notability guidelines and the above conversation also illustrates an obvious conflict of interest. General rule of thumb; if you aren't important enough for people you don't know to make an article about you, you probably aren't notable enough to warrant an article on Wikipedia. --The Way 06:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete --even if the subject hadn't tried to push his way in. When the subject is notable enough to gt in, it won;t be necessary.DGG 04:59, 11 December 2006 (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.