Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dai Paterson

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. (non-admin closure) TarnishedPath^talk 15:34, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Paterson[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)

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:MUSICBIO, WP:ENT or WP:GNG. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 18:49, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies NACTOR with main roles in Dreams for Life and Happy New [1], the latter of which had reviews in Agenda, A3 and The Herald Sun in addition to the linked Age article already in the refs. And a significant role in Dog's Head Bay (as David Paterson). Also a significant role in God, the Devil and the True History of Mankind with short reviews in The Age and Herald Sun but that might not reach the bar of notability without more coverage being available. He was also a big bad in the second series of Beastmaster but online coverage of that series is severely lacking. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:08, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per duffbeerforme above Llajwa (talk) 18:20, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:29, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: BLP, Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article and BEFORE found nothing with WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. BEFORE searching for the subject name showed nothing from IRS with SIGCOV, a review and search for Dreams for Life which seems to be their most significant role, turns up no SIGCOV for the individual. BLPs require strong sourcing, and notability is not inherited.

The only source duffbeerforme provides [2] is a database record of an event, their rationale fails per NOTINHERITED. Llajwa is just a me too vote. If WP:THREE sources are added to the article that meet WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth, ping me. // Timothy :: talk 02:42, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional analysis of the available reference material would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of Tim's boilerplate vote is about the contents of BLP, not their existence. NACTOR is part of NBIO so a pass of the former is not a fail of the latter. Tim dismisses the above link I provided as merely a database record but fails to look at what is contained in the record

Review: Bill Perrett, Agenda, 13 June 2004, 23

Review: Helen Thomson, A3, 8 June 2004, 8

Review: Kate Herbert, The Herald Sun, 16 June 2004, 62

When combined with the also mentioned Age article it shows that this production is notable and as Mr. Paterson has a significant role in the production it counts toward NACTOR section about significant roles in notable production. This is not a NOTINHERITED failure but a direct application of the relevant SNG.

A look at the article for Dreams for Life (which if all else had been found wanting would be a good alternative to deletion target so no deletion would be required) shows that it too is notable and that Mr. Paterson has a significant role (as acknowledged above by Tim above). So there is another role that directly addresses that same NACTOR criteria. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Notability is not inherited. Source eval:

Comments	Source
Database record, no info except photo	1. "David Paterson". United Agents.
Official video on Youtube, fails WP:IS, no WP:SIGCOV about the subject	2. ^ "Silverchair - Emotion Sickness (Official Video)". YouTube. 28 September 2012. Archived from the original on 19 December 2021.
Official video on Youtube, fails WP:IS, no WP:SIGCOV about the subject	3. ^ The chicken or the egg?
	From above
Database record for event, no info about subject, has links to other subjects, notability is not inherited	https://www.ausstage.edu.au/pages/event/65671

BLPs require strong sourcing, not just editor opinions. // Timothy :: talk 03:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- Oops, sorry, forgot that it has been confirmed at Deletion Review that editors can ignore the existence of any relevant source that exists but is not currently refbombed into the page. That and they can ignore any relevant notability policy if it doesn't suit their arguments. Oh, and your source review sucks, maybe check it again. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:20, 13 February 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.