Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bronson Webb

Add links
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 Keep. Changes to article since nomination show that it meets WP:ACTOR-- Patar knight - chat/contributions 07:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bronson Webb[edit]

Bronson Webb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR, all of the references show only that he is listed in credits of various films in small rolls, but show nothing else; no sources show significant coverage or meet any of the criteria of WP:NACTOR. Aoidh (talk) 20:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Major role in Luis Prieto's Pusher; secondary roles in Fingersmith, Robin Hood, Eden Lake, The Disappeared and Kill Your Friends; small roles in popular films or TV series such as Harry Potter, Pirates of Caribbean, The Dark Knight, The Tudors and Game of Thrones.--Alienautic (talk) 20:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As the article's creator I'm sure you think it is notable, but there are no reliable sources showing notability, and claiming that it's a major role in a minor movie doesn't satisfy any notability criteria whatsoever. Your keep comment does not address the reasons for the AfD, why should the article be kept? The reasoning you gave does not meet WP:NACTOR. - Aoidh (talk) 15:17, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now unless one of the linking articles looks best for a move target as Wikipedia is not IMDb and none of his roles were actually significant, mostly minor such as attendant and such, and there's not much else to suggest improvement. Feel free to draft & userfy to userspace if needed. SwisterTwister talk 04:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 00:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep It is a poor bio, but he is billed third in Pusher (2012 film), which is noted in the NYTimes where his filmography is also reprinted. All of his work is blue-linked with several named roles. I've added both NYTimes references to the article. Appears to meet NACTOR #1 at this point. 009o9 (talk) 17:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Webb's character in the Harry Potter film is also a named role "Slytherin Boy" -- not one of many "slytherin boys."[1] His role may have been a small one, but Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (film) apparently went over pretty well, 3/4 of a billion dollars. 009o9 (talk) 18:22, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 2 There are five or six more mentions on Variety, [2] maybe Alienautic could go over some of these and do a little better job on the lede section? 009o9 (talk) 18:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - While he's played several roles that aren't particularly notable, he had a huge part in Pusher. As stated above, he was third billed in a movie that has become somewhat of a cult hit. There's reliable source coverage that praises his acting in different publications-- here's The Hollywood Reporter highlighting that "a livewire Bronson Webb... chalks up dramatic points in the hard-act-to-follow role that was originally Mads Mikkelsen’s". I have mixed feelings on this, but it looks like the best outcome is to focus on improving the article rather than just deleting it. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:44, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are there sources saying that movie is a cult hit? It grossed $180k, and there are zero third-party sources in Pusher (2012 film), much less any to indicate any "cult status" for the film. Having a role in a minor film doesn't satisfy WP:NACTOR without some serious sources, and that single sentence in the Holywood Reporter piece doesn't satisfy that; an article cannot meet WP:NPOV if there aren't any sources that say anything about a topic to reflect into a Wikipedia article, and an article that cannot meet a core content policy should not exist until it can. It may be almost a borderline case, but it's WP:TOOSOON to have an article. What little coverage there is for this article is barely enough to cover the most basic "films he was in" article, and that's content appropriate for IMDB, not Wikipedia. - Aoidh (talk) 01:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TOOSOON would not apply here because it, specifically WP:NOT YET (actors), is overridden by meeting one condition in WP:ACTOR. That said, the order of names on the playbill for actors is contractually negotiated and reporters generally honor that order of appearance. Billing credits from the Variety reviews alone impart notability by order:
  • Pusher (2012) - Richard Coyle, Bronson Webb... [3]
  • Payback Season (2012) - Adam Deacon, Nichola Burley, David Ajala, Leo Gregory, Bronson Webb... [4]
  • Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (2011) - N/A named but bit part[5]
  • Dead Man Running (2009) - Tamer Hassan, Danny Dyer, Brenda Blethyn, Curtis "50 Cent" Jackson, Monet Mazur, Ashley Walters, Phil Davis, Omid Djalili, Blake Ritson, Bronson Webb... [6]
  • Cass (2008) - Nonso Anozie, Natalie Press, Linda Bassett, Leo Gregory, Gavin Brocker, Tamer Hassan, Peter White, Paul Kaye, Bronson Webb,...[7]
  • The Lives of the Saints (2006) - James Cosmo, David Leon, Emma Pierson, Bronson Webb... [8]
Then we have the "About This Person" from his biography on the New York Times,[9] and a blip about people from the Harry Potter cast also appearing on Game of Thrones.[10] This article[11] and this article[12] and this article[13] mention Webb in key supporting roles. The subject meets WP:NRV and the first sentence in WP:ATD reads, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." 009o9 (talk) 04:57, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly are you seeing here that shows notability? And what part of WP:NACTOR are you suggesting this article meets? Nothing you've shown gives any substance beyond what IMDB shows; a listing of names and nothing more, and editing cannot improve this page, because there are no reliable sources that can be used to improve it. Even ignoring the fact that this article utterly fails to meet WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR, the article is fundamentally unable to meet WP:NPOV and WP:ATD does not support keeping it, in this or any other state. If this is the kind of significant coverage you're alluding to, it's pretty clear that there is no significant coverage. Articles require significant coverage, and of all of these sources you've linked, not a single one comes even close to doing that, and that is something that is required as a bare minimum for a Wikipedia article; editing cannot improve the page, as you suggest, when the sourcing and notability is the issue. - Aoidh (talk) 20:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How in the world does this article suggest it fails WP:NPOV? There is currently nothing in the article besides one sentence and a filmography -- all blue linked and the article exceeds WP:ORPHAN for 3 incoming links. Arguably, The New York Times is the most significant newspaper in the world, thus significant coverage for his filmography -- not everyone with a Rovi bio gets on the NYTimes. Insignificant coverage would be like the credit he got for doing Pirates of the Caribbean,[14] where he is not first billed. A significant part in a plot vehicle is where you play the best friend, kidnapper, love interest etc. i.e., the part is crucial to the story. Thus passes the first bullet in WP:GNG. In this case there is no OR needed to cite that Webb appeared in these films as claimed in the article AND these films are stand-alone published works, also lending to notability. Additionally, the Variety cites are film reviews, the mere fact that someone not playing the lead character is getting a sentence or two is notable. Webb is getting "noticed" by reliable sources (and others) around the web, this is the definition of notability. There is enough out there on him to cobble together a decent start article. I think you are misinterpreting the meaning of "Significant coverage", my reading indicates that it means the quantity and reputation of the sources, the footnote in GNG reads that one sentence in a several hundred page book is not WP:N,[15] conversely, a sentence or two in a one page (20 sentence) article would be WP:N and we have several of those. 009o9 (talk) 22:02, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It cannot be expanded in any way and still meet WP:NPOV, because there are no "significant views that have been published by reliable sources", so nothing can be added to the article beyond what is already shown at IMDB. As for the New York Times, there is no significant coverage in the link you provided, it is a database pulled from the All Media Guide Movie Database, which is an indiscriminate collection akin to IMDB, and thus not indicative of notability, especially when this is the kind of indepth biography you think the editors at the New York Times wrote? That is not significant coverage by any definition that has ever been accepted on Wikipedia.
You're suggesting that the bare facts "he appeared in movies X, Y, and Z" is somehow notability is inaccurate; you're confusing verifiability and notability which are not the same. Being verifiable does not meet the first criteria of WP:GNG, especially when there is zero significant coverage. A source that contains a short sentence that mentions the subject in an aside and goes into no greater detail is very definition trivial coverage; this article fails WP:GNG utterly, which is the bare minimum for an article, and doesn't even come close to meeting WP:NACTOR. Your reading of significant coverage is inaccurate; what little is mentioned in these reliable sources is that "he appeared in this film". That's it. That is an insignificant, trivial mention that does not address this article's subject in any detail whatsoever. The note you mentioned does not say what you're saying it does. It's saying that if there's a 500 page book on a subject, that's pretty significant coverage, but if it's just a sentence or two in an online article, is "plainly trivial". I'm not seeing a 500 page book, only a sentence in an article. Therefore, per the footnote you cited, and therefore per Wikipedia consensus, this article has no reliable sources that go beyond trivial coverage. - Aoidh (talk) 02:19, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Both AllMovie and AllMusic have been RS for quite some time now, they have an editorial staff and so does the NYTimes. The reference is nothing like IMDb, it has made it through two layers of editorial review. Additionally, I don't understand why you keep bringing up IMDb, we are talking about oranges you you keep bringing up apples. Nothing here is sourced from IMDb, it is simply used as an external link.
You are reading the footnote I provided exactly backward.[16] In effect, it says if an off-topic sentence or two is buried in a wall of text (Clinton example), it is trivial -- not significant. Webb is mentioned in several books for his Harry Potter and Batman roles, those refs do not impart notability, but can be used to prove that he played the parts. To the converse, and per dichotomy of scale, two on-topic sentences in a sixteen sentence article is significant coverage, an eighth of the article is dedicated to a critique of the actor/character.Variety Similarly, The Hollywood Reporter spent some ink on him and his character in this article.[17] And the New York Times notes the character he played and his third place billing [18] Third billing in a film that gets this kind of attention is not trivial -- Meets GNG bullet one. Concerning NPOV, the article simply needs a lede section written in prose (citing these sources) and a we have a decent start article for this character actor who has obviously arrived. According to IMDb, he's completed three films this year.009o9 (talk) 03:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the "biography"? It's completely blank, and that's my point. It was a database added entry, nobody gave that entry editorial review, because there's nothing there. Are you suggesting that a blank page is "significant coverage"? As for the footnote, I don't know how you're reaching the conclusion you are, the text is literally saying the exact opposite of what you're saying. "The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker (1992-01-06). "Tough love child of Kennedy". The Guardian. In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice.) is plainly trivial." It doesn't say anything about "dichotomy of scale"; it is saying that an entire book on a subject is notable, but a sentence or two is not. Please cite where you're getting this idea of "dichotomy of scale", because nothing there mentions that; that is a conclusion you have drawn yourself, but not one that Wikipedia uses. The Hollywood Reporter "spending some ink" is exactly the type of trivial coverage that, per the footnote you yourself provided, does not show notability. Your conclusion of a blank biography meeting WP:GNG is wildly out-of-sync with Wikipedia consensus on what constitutes significant coverage; by the rationale you're providing a phone book would provide significant coverage, as it's a reliable source and the information can be verified. But again, what you're arguing for is that verfiability somehow equates to notability, and that just isn't the case. Can you show one reliable source that provides significant coverage? None of the sources you're mentioned do, and Wikipedia articles require several. - Aoidh (talk) 20:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I did a general clean up, added a lede and references, generic stuff to the infobox, I started with four widely recognizable titles and then had a look at Kingdom of Heaven (film) $130million, the guy has a knack for getting himself into some pretty high budget films. 009o9 (talk) 07:49, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately getting minor roles in "some pretty high budget films" is not a criteria of WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR, and since this article has zero reliable sources that show significant coverage, it's not an issue of cleaning up the article, it's an issue of sources. - Aoidh (talk) 20:07, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with you, if the article only had one or two references, the article has sixteen decent references and now a lede that you said could not be written NPOV. From WP:GNG...
  • "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material."
  • "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected"
From WP:BASIC...
  • "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability"
We have multiple sources where he is first billed. From WP:NACTOR...
  1. "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions."
The bio has eight incoming links from the article space and the bit parts he played are not listed. [19] The article was rough when you found it, but I think it has been improved enough to make a decent start article. 009o9 (talk) 22:07, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're arguing for quantity over quality, and when none of the sources muster enough notability to meet WP:GNG, it doesn't matter if the article has 16 or 1,600, the number of sources is irrelevant. You're quoting significant coverage, but not providing a single source that meets this requirement, because as you footnote you provided shows, every source is a trivial mention. Trivial mentions do not combine to create substantial coverage, especially when most of them are quite literally stating his name after a role and nothing more. Incoming links from article space is completely irrelevant to notability, and you may think the article has been improved, but as I've said multiple times already, it is the sources that are the issue, not the content. You can rewrite the article as many times as you would like, but if neither WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR can be met, the article should be deleted. As for the "improvement", you literally rewrote his filmography into prose, nothing you wrote there is not already contained within the filmography; if redundancy is an improvement then we differ on that definition. Do you have any sources that can actually expand the article into something meaningful? - Aoidh (talk) 02:01, 10 September 2015 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bronson_Webb&oldid=1137654257"