Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cameron Powrie
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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cameron Powrie[edit]
- Cameron Powrie (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)
BLP Prod contested with the addition of sources. Unfortunately, these sources are IMDB and Youtube, both of which fail our reliability guidelines. Nothing on GNews. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 01:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 01:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, the credentials speak for themselves. I think a voice actor that does popular ads is notable. –BuickCenturyDriver 02:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no notability guideline "credentials speak for themselves" and no notability guideline for voice actors that is simply "does popular ads." CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Still, voice actors generally are notable for the most part. Notable doesn't mean the person has to be a household name. –BuickCenturyDriver 10:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Generally are notable for the most part?" That's not actually a standard. There's no such thing under WP:ENT, which explicitly includes voice actors. If you have some evidence to back up your assertion that voice actors on Wikipedia are a special class that are granted inherent notability, then I'd be happy to change my ultimate vote. I'm talking about a community consensus on inherent notability of voice actors here, not revving up the WP:OSE and finding other voice actors on wikipedia that also fail under WP:GNG and WP:ENT and have yet to be removed. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- and yes, there is a VAST quantity of voice actors that have pages and no reliable source coverage. the animae fans are very good at churning out inappropriate content. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's just a poorly written article. If the stuff written is false that is certainly grounds for deletion. But if the information can be verified then claiming non-notability is a cop-out. –BuickCenturyDriver 15:02, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I advise you to make your case based on the actual notability guidelines if you wish your position to be given any weight in the discussion. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, if someone "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." that includes notable advertisements, doesn't it? Still if the article is full of lies and the facts about this person contradict the article, then I'll be happy to join the deletion consensus. –BuickCenturyDriver 03:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, commercial voice overs are not "significant roles". but even if they were, there are no reliable sources presented to verify that he is in fact providing voice acting or any other participation in multiple commercials. so you are failing twice. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Basically most of this article, before edites were deleted was original research so this article can and will probably be deleted. –BuickCenturyDriver 06:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, commercial voice overs are not "significant roles". but even if they were, there are no reliable sources presented to verify that he is in fact providing voice acting or any other participation in multiple commercials. so you are failing twice. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, if someone "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." that includes notable advertisements, doesn't it? Still if the article is full of lies and the facts about this person contradict the article, then I'll be happy to join the deletion consensus. –BuickCenturyDriver 03:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I advise you to make your case based on the actual notability guidelines if you wish your position to be given any weight in the discussion. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's just a poorly written article. If the stuff written is false that is certainly grounds for deletion. But if the information can be verified then claiming non-notability is a cop-out. –BuickCenturyDriver 15:02, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- and yes, there is a VAST quantity of voice actors that have pages and no reliable source coverage. the animae fans are very good at churning out inappropriate content. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Generally are notable for the most part?" That's not actually a standard. There's no such thing under WP:ENT, which explicitly includes voice actors. If you have some evidence to back up your assertion that voice actors on Wikipedia are a special class that are granted inherent notability, then I'd be happy to change my ultimate vote. I'm talking about a community consensus on inherent notability of voice actors here, not revving up the WP:OSE and finding other voice actors on wikipedia that also fail under WP:GNG and WP:ENT and have yet to be removed. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Still, voice actors generally are notable for the most part. Notable doesn't mean the person has to be a household name. –BuickCenturyDriver 10:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no notability guideline "credentials speak for themselves" and no notability guideline for voice actors that is simply "does popular ads." CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:GNG No evidence of even minor coverage, let alone numerous sources of reliable coverage. Fails WP:ENT as well as there's no evidence of significant roles in multiple notable films, no evidence of a large fan base or significant cult following, no evidence of unique, prolific or innovate contributions to a field of entertainment. This one's not even a particularly close call. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This might be WP:TOOSOON, but as it stands right now it's not enough to pass WP:NACTOR. §FreeRangeFrog 21:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please can this page be deleted as it is almost entirely untrue and part of an elaborate prank? Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmp10111 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A prank so elaborate that PBS was fooled into posting content on its website that verifies it? I find that a bit unlikely. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think they were talking about this version for which the description could very well be completely applicable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:15, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A prank so elaborate that PBS was fooled into posting content on its website that verifies it? I find that a bit unlikely. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- delete - if anyone has access to [1] it looks like there might be a page or so about him/his role, but that would still only be 1 source of significant coverage. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I added this PBS reference,[2] but since I'm not familiar with notability guidelines for actors, I won't !vote. First Light (talk) 23:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- PBS talking about him in the promotional website for their broadcast of the series is not a "third party" source so it cannot be used to establish "notability", but could potentially be used for content if other third party material is found. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:50, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails to meet GNG, lack of significant coverage about this person. Plus (although not necessarily a policy-based rationale) BLPs of such 'almost notable' people are magnets for very problematic misinformation (ie BLP violating content such as slander, libel, etc.) The 'prank' aspect is irrelevant here; the simple fact is, there isn't enough reliably-sourced info out there to maintain a reasonable article about the individual, so it's basic WP:V. 88.104.4.123 (talk) 09:58, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable. FailsWP:BIO --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:50, 24 November 2012 (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.