Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Moo

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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:40, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David Moo[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)

The subject does not meet Wikipedia notability standards based on the cited references. If there are other opinions, please share here. JRed176 (talk) 17:44, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Massachusetts. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:59, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. He has appeared in many major works, the man meets GNG and WP: Actor. This account is either a SPA OR someone who has made an alt because with such few edits knowing how to use AFD feels like an agenda. Did you do WP:BEFORE before posting thisAsk me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 13:09, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- ** The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field

The magazine feature already covers this

- ** Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other production

This is covered by his anime dubbing rules.

Its unusual in that he has two businesses but those meet the roles. Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 13:12, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think the account just saw the PROD notice being removed from the David Moo page with an unsuitable reason, not an SPA. They even tried to restore the PROD notice. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:47, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notability on Wikipedia is about reliable sources in the plural, not just one source. One cited source is the case now after the review of the article i.e. the subject's voice over career, barring the external links. I don't believe the case can be made for being a notable bartender in this instance. The bar owned by the subject in question appears to be notable but a Wikipedia article could not be written only about a notable bartender with those sources presented (and could practically anyone good at their job with a few write ups online by extension have a Wikipedia article? I think not). Therefore, notability, if granted for purposes of a Wikipedia article is about the subject's voice over career and that alone primarily. If it is decided to keep the article, those who favor doing so should ideally find proper additional sources and cite them accordingly regarding the subject's work and impact. JRed176 (talk) 14:34, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I went through the article and consolidated the sections due to the short length, making a "Personal life and career" section instead. I added where citations are needed. The consensus appears to be to keep the article. Due to its present state, I feel it's ok to keep it and simply put a references needed notice at the top. Thanks

JRed176 (talk) 16:18, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looking at the changes, my earlier concerns have been mitigated. I withdraw the PROD and feel the article can be kept. 38.140.49.92 (talk) 06:42, 12 January 2023 (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.