Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas Tait

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 no consensus. SilkTork ✔Tea time 19:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Tait[edit]

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

This article was already deleted in 2010 (with a miscapitalization) per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas tait. Because this article offers no new facts or reliable sources to indicate the subject meets WP:NACTOR, I tagged it for speedy. That was declined, so here we are. The creator has repeatedly added youtube clips, wikis, and blogs as sources. Looking past that material (which should be deleted immediately, but I'll leave that to others so as not to edit war), I can only see two Canyon News articles ([1] & [2]) and an Inkless Magazine posting ([3]) that could even possibly qualify as contributing to WP:NACTOR/WP:BIO. But I don't think the Inkless Magazine, especially, qualifies as an RS; it seems to be a blog. And the Canyon News "coverage" doesn't seem to qualify as the type of coverage or source required to meet notability guidelines. Novaseminary (talk) 23:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article was deleted prior, and rightfully so, because at the time it was not properly sourced or formatted. Not because the subject lacked notability. As the article now clearly indicates, the exact opposite it true. It is equally noteworthy that, while this article has been up for almost an entire year, the only reason we are here now is because an editor elected this process over prior discussion and consensus on the article's talk page even after that option was offered. The article as it currently stands is well-sourced from multiple reputable sources, including the film distributor American World Pictures, Disney | ABC Television Group, Cinefantastique, Fangoria, Metal Life Magazine, The Film Franchise, and the Friday the 13th (franchise). These sources are well-known within the genre where the subject has established notability and in many cases, their own notability has already been established here. The subject's notability is also established in both #2 and #3 of WP:BIO/WP:ENT, which says notability is established if the subject: "2) Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." and "3) Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." While some may question the blogosphere, it is often invaluable in determining the "fan base", "significant 'cult' following, and "unique, prolific or innovative contributions" to this field of entertainment. I believe notability is clear to anyone who reviews the article. So I oppose deletion for all these reasons. X4n6 (talk) 23:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is also noteworthy in my view, that the editor who initiated this action continued to delete sources in the article after requesting this review, rather than waiting for any final resolution or consensus. So also please review the article's log. Thank you. X4n6 (talk) 00:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Our own survey of the blogosphere itself is not how we determine "fan base", "significant 'cult' following, and "unique, prolific or innovative contributions"; we use reliable secondary sources for that. What you describe would be original research and is not permitted on Wikipedia, let alone to establish notability. Can you point to reliable (per WP:RS), secondary sources not affiliated with Tait to support his notability? And because X4n6 finds it noteworthy, here is the last version of this article before I came along, and here is the diff to show the "sources" I removed since listing this article here at AfD. It is not any particular version of this article that fails WP:N, it is the subject of this article that fails N. Novaseminary (talk) 00:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response I believe my original statement already answers your question regarding Tait's notability at WP:ENT. Putting the blogosphere issue aside, the reliable sources in the article include sources who's own notability has already been established here. Cinefantastique and Fangoria are notable magazines. Friday the 13th (franchise) is a notable film franchise. While the notability of both Disney & ABC are obvious. Together they establish Tait's notability, while WP:ENT, as already noted, confirms it on two levels. There is really no actual need for the blogosphere to confer anything here. It simply adds yet another layer of notability and given that they are all readily available on the internet, I fail to see how they constitute original research in any event. Finally, while your linking to the last version prior to your edits is useful, perhaps in an exercise of good faith, you will voluntarily revert those edits until this is resolved here. Thank you. X4n6 (talk) 01:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Among the sources currently in the article, cast listings, photo captions, and blog posts, and similar sources don't come close to meeting any version of WP:N. Rather than pointing to the article, why not list here three or four of the sources you think establish N (without resoprting to WP:SYNTH)? I would happily withdraw the nomination if you can bring up something new, but the sourcing in the article now (or as it has ever existed) fails N. Novaseminary (talk) 01:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let's review shall we: The cast listings you reference are from a film's official website. Certainly there is no rule-based objection to that. The photo caption is from TV.com, a reputable website owned by CBS, that used a photo licensed for their use by Disney & ABC. And what you called a blog post is actually the online component to Cinefantastique, a notable magazine in this genre. So in each case, I fail to see the basis for your objection. To the contrary, as each are notable in their own right, I also don't see how you might claim they don't inherently confer notability. You also excluded Fangoria magazine, as well as other links not even mentioned here, like Inkless Magazine, Canyon News and Dreadcentral.com. So what we have is an article that links to several sources owned, operated and/or using content by CBS, ABC, Disney, Cinefantastique, Fangoria, Dreadcentral.com and the Friday the 13th (franchise) itself, among others and your concerns are on notability? If you have not, please read WP:ENT. I'm confident that this article contains far more reliable sources and it's subject clears the notability threshold far easier than a great many other articles on this forum. In fact, if this article could be removed, those same questionable grounds could be used to remove articles on other well known performers in this genre as well, like Andy Serkis, Doug Jones, Brian Steele, Kane Hodder and Derek Mears, many of whom use the identical or similar sources. I don't believe it is productive to travel down that road. This genre has value to a great many people worldwide and these individuals are their recognized stars. That's undeniable. The article and it's subject don't just meet the WP:N bar, they exceed it. I had also contemplated adding additional reliable sources, when I was interrupted by your review request. Therefore, hopefully you will consider all this and withdraw your nomination, so that we can work together to further improve the article. X4n6 (talk) 02:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What I called a a blog post (with only a brief mention of Tait anyway) is just that, whether it appears on the website of a now-defunct print magazine (per that magazine's WP article) or not. And I am not debating he is on certain casts or that this can be verified, even in RSs. But that sort of non-substantive mention in an affliated source doesn't meet WP:BIO, even if the cast list is reliable; and his presence on the cast doesn't meet WP:ENT. And are you really arguing that this photo caption establishes notability? I do object to many of the sources you added that violate guidelines (youtube, wikis, fansite, online fan forum posts even if on official movie websites, etc), but even the sources that don't inherently violate guidelines do little to establish notability. As for the other articles you mentioned, that sort of argument is rarely convincing (WP:OTHERSTUFF). You can say you are confident this subject meets NACTOR until you are blue in th face, but that doesn't make it so. And you can keep referencing the same sources I have already highlighted and act like they meet BIO or NACTOR, but that doesn't make it so either. Acccording to the article lead/you, his first "notable" role (and the only one mentioned in the lead which along with the rest of the article suggests it is his most notable) is playing a major character in one scene of a movie as a stuntman, not as the main actor playing the character. That does not meet WP:NACTOR #1, and the other two prongs are not even close. Novaseminary (talk) 03:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What you called a a blog post is actually an article. It is a full article on a website called Cinefantastique. Not only is it attributed to a writer, but the page even carries that writer's bio. A "blog post" is an anonymous comment in an online forum. This is a "blog post" in the same vein that Time.com, People.com and other online incarnations of magazines write articles you would call "blog posts". Before attempting to disparage the source, you would have done well to have read about it's history. I also note with interest that you have now undertaken an attack on that magazine's Wikipedia article as well, an article that, by the way, has been up since 2005 and yet you now feel the need to tag with WP:ELNO and WP:ELOFFICIAL challenges, despite the fact that the article already links to the magazine's current incarnation. Also what you claim is Mr. Tait's "brief mention" in the article, is in fact the cast list, which lists him among the leads of the film. A film lead, "noted in multiple independent periodical articles", constitutes notability. I suggest you read Element #3 and #4c under WP:ARTIST. I have just quoted it. And while you claim the subject fails the threshold of WP:ENT, I suggest you review Element #1 of WP:ENT. In fact, throughout the article, Elements #1, #2 and #3 of WP:ENT are each individually satisfied. As to your question if I am arguing that this this photo caption establishes notability. No. But taken in tandem with this photo caption, this photo caption, this photo caption, this photo caption, this photo caption, this photo caption, these photo captions, these photo captions, and this photo caption, including countless others that could be included, I am confident notability is well established. Your claim that only an actor and not a stuntman is notable is not only illogical, but in this case, factually inaccurate. It is a well established fact that prominent members of every aspect of the film industry have established sufficient notability for articles on them to be included here. But more to the point, the roles the subject of the article is notable for playing are not stunts, they are characters. As the article notes, in the film industry they are a specialty called creature characters because of the heavy use of prosthetics, makeup, wardrobe and other effects in the fantasy, horror and sci-fi genres. But it isn't necessary to argue this with you, as you have made your own WP:POV biases and inflexibility very clear. Ultimately, standards of notability as specifically defined by #3 and #4c under WP:ARTIST, as well as the first 3 elements of WP:ENT, prevail. As those standards are met here, that alone is sufficient to establish notability and defeat any notability challenge to either the subject or this article. X4n6 (talk) 10:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure you unddrstand what a blog is. The blog or online magazine or whatever is a bare mention of Tait in a list of who is in a small film, so it is not enough regardless. And a series of online photo captions as establishing notability? That is creative, if not compliant with ENT or BIO. I admire your tenacity if not your judgment. And my POV is merely to keep WP from being uses for promotion. Let's not turn a disagreement about notability into a personal attack. Novaseminary (talk) 15:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It would appear that you didn't read the very definition of blog that you provided. It's very first sentence calls a blog a "personal journal". While it's second sentence calls one "usually the work of a single individual, occasionally of a small group". Both fail to provide you the definition you need. For the last time, an article is written for a notable source and carries a byline. This is not a blog. Nor does your repeated mischaracterization of the length of his mention make any sense whatsoever. The leads in the film include Tony Todd, an internationally recognized actor, most known for his work in the Candyman series. Note, I did not say "exclusively known", but "most known". The film also stars, with Mr. Tait, Academy Award nominee Sally Kirkland, as well as one of the stars of Stehen King's Dead Zone, Chris Bruno. But using your logic, since their mention, as fellow stars of this "small" (your words) film, are as brief as Mr. Tait's, their notability cannot be established or inferred? Is that really your best argument? The size of a mention, not it's context? Don't you see you are grasping at straws and chasing your tail here? I'll grant you no single entry establishes notability, but a succession of different entries, not all pointing to the same thing, certainly do. One photo may not establish notability. But a succession of different photos, establishing a notable pattern clearly does. In the end, you have not successfully challenged the subject's notability. All you have really managed is an attack on the SHEER VOLUME of sources that DO in fact establish his notability merely by their sheer volume. The subject's "collective body of work" establishes notability and these sources from "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" establish that "collective body of work". Those are not my words. They are Wikipedia's. So the endgame here is simple. Unless and until you are prepared to attempt a rule-by-rule refutation of, not only that rule, but all the other Wikipedia rules I have repeatedly cited that undeniably apply to this article and/or it's subject, there's really no reason to continue this ad infinitum. Finally, it is entirely counterproductive and inappropriate to try to turn a legitmate observation about your tendentious editing of this article into a personal attack. They could not be more different. X4n6 (talk) 21:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you realize your filibustering is unlikely to convince anyone. Anyone can read and give their take on the blog/online magazine post/bylined article which does nothing more than mention the role this actor (along with the other actors) plays in a non-notable film (One by One: Death's Door). And maybe you will convince some folks that "a succession of different photos, establishing a notable pattern" including (and I paste from your post above) "this photo caption, this photo caption, this photo caption, this photo caption, this photo caption, this photo caption, these photo captions, these photo captions, and this photo caption" (2 photos from another actor's 137-photo TV.com gallery, 2 IMDB photos, 2 blogspot blog photos, and 1 fan forum posting) meets some prong of some notability criteria. I doubt it. Novaseminary (talk) 06:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you now realize you cannot defend your specious speedy request. The fact that the article has existed for a year, with contributions from numerous editors, none of whom felt the need to question it's notability, is itself notable. Even if not to you. Equally notable is your failure to refute the fact that the rules and guidelines I cited at #1, #2 and #3 of WP:ENT and #3 and #4c of WP:ARTIST do prevail. Instead you ignore them completely. While your newest complaint of filibustering is little more than your latest attempt at gaming the system and is consistent with your decision to file this speedy before first even seeking consensus on the article's talk page - which was offered to you and ignored by you; or going through the many steps available before even attempting this speedy reach. If you had reviewed WP:BLPPROD, you would have seen the criteria for proposed deletion of BLPs and understood it only takes one reliable source to defeat it. You have already conceded the article contains more than one. Which leads to the fact that a review of WP:NOTCSD would also have informed you that all your Notability challenges are specifically cited as Non-criteria for speedy. So as you must now realize you have no real grounds for speedy, perhaps you will finally exercise the wisdom of withdrawing it voluntarily, before it is formally rejected. As by the rules and guidelines, it must be. X4n6 (talk) 09:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We are at WP:AfD, not discussing speedy deletion. Welcome. (Though I do think the article should be speedy deleted under G4, that's not why we're here.) And WP:BLPPROD is irrelevant; I never suggested it be deleted per BLPPROD. Novaseminary (talk) 15:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I inadvertently referred to your equally failed speedy attempt. Oops. But WP:AfD has standards as well. You should have followed WP:BEFORE BEFORE jumping the gun. You did not. But it really doesn't matter, because what you still don't get is that you don't get to forum shop. You have already failed at speedy, yet you can't take no for an answer. That is textbook WP:TE,WP:GAME and WP:FORUMSHOP. This article is a BLP. The rules for BLPs apply "anywhere on Wikipedia". Likewise the rules for deleting a BLP also apply here - whether you want them to or not. You present nothing that supports a BLP deletion. X4n6 (talk) 21:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did every step of WP:BEFORE before listing here. AfD is the appropriate forum for contested deletion nominations. WP:BLPPROD is a special lower-bar deletion mechanism for BLPs. It does not apply here, though WP:BLP certainly does (and doesn't support your position, though it does call into question some of the material and sources you have added to the article). Novaseminary (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLPPROD applies to all BLPs created after March 18, 2010. This BLP was created April 5, 2011. So, hello! We have already discussed ad nauseum how your WP:BLPPROD fails because the article contains more than one reliable source. By your own admission "WP:BLPPROD is a special lower-bar deletion mechanism". If you cannot reach even that low bar, the rest of your AfD is moot. The End. But as a footnote, regarding the applicability of WP:BLP, I'm delighted we agree. Suggest you review both WP:SOURCES and WP:NEWSBLOG before making more unsupportable claims. Finally, purely out of curiosity since you will not voluntarily desist, do you ever intend to answer #3 and #4c under WP:ARTIST, or the first 3 elements of WP:ENT as related to this article? Your continued silence on them is telling. X4n6 (talk) 22:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also I simply can't let your claim that you "did every step of WP:BEFORE" go unanswered. You did not. I suggest you review the section C. "Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted." You failed to comply with #1 and #3. Those failures are why we're here. X4n6 (talk) 22:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From the lead of WP:BLPPROD: "This proposed deletion mechanism is intended to augment, not supersede, other Wikipedia deletion processes or content policies" and later "Nothing in this policy should be understood to affect the core content policies or existing deletion processes." By lower bar, I meant the bar to survive a BLPPROD is very low. And as for BEFORE, I did consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted. I am arguing that this article should be deleted because the subject fails Wikipedia notability (WP:DEL-REASON: "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline"), not any other reason that I can fix. So, unless I could get Tait some coverage that meets WP:BIO or roles that meet WP:NACTOR, I can't improve the article enough to pass N. As for ARTIST 3 or 4c, I can't find any evidence he has done anything close to this. As for WP:ENT (which is the same as WP:NACTOR which I discuss above), he has not had the sorts of roles that meet ENT 1. And we have absolutely no independent RSs to suggest he meets 2 or 3 (your WP:OR highlighting fan forums notwithstanding). Novaseminary (talk) 04:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First line of WP:BLPPROD: "(BLP) created after March 18, 2010, can be proposed for deletion using a special proposed deletion process." "augment, not supersede" is logical since the cutoff is "BLP created after March 18, 2010." This BLP was. WP:BLP applies. And: "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, and categories." Since the BLP passes BLPPROD and a failed speedy, nothing's left but this AfD on WP:N. On WP:BIO, see WP:BASIC #1 and WP:ANYBIO #2. Either is enough, both apply. On WP:ARTIST, 1, 3 & 4 apply. On WP:ENT/WP:NACTOR, all 3 apply. Kill WP:OR: If it's "attributable to a reliable published source", no OR. Finally, "unless I could get Tait some coverage... you can't improve the article enough to pass N" says one thing: you never tried. Your log is deletion only. See new adds. N is clear. Every policy proves it. X4n6 (talk) 13:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I never BLPPRODed this article; we agree that this article would survice a BLPPROD. Passing BLPPROD in no way means an article ipso facto survives all other deletion processes. And you are right, I never tried to "get Tait some coverage that meets WP:BIO or roles that meet WP:NACTOR". That is for his publicist and agent (who should read WP:COI before editing this article). I did check to make sure that there was not such coverage or roles. And please stop adding IMDB and fan forums as references, WP:IMDB and WP:BLPSOURCES (part of BLP), as you did in your recent onslaught of edits. Unless this article is actually kept, I won't bother removing them again. Novaseminary (talk) 19:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We do agree BLPPROD would fail. We also do agree speedy has already failed. As to your claim that "unless I could get Tait some coverage... you can't improve the article enough to pass N", I took "coverage" to mean sources. It seems you did not. However, since I did, it now has abundant reliable sources. Quibbles with IMDB notwithstanding, IMDB is just an additional tertiary source, always accompanied by a reliable source. While this forum has a problem with that source, most readers do not. But now they have the choice to link to it or to the New York Times or to the Screen Actors Guild Awards, or to the Hollywood Reporter for the same info if they prefer. And so can you. You see, not everything is so easily dismissed as IMDB or a fan forum anymore. Suggest you actually read the links instead of just skimming the References. This AfD is done. X4n6 (talk) 21:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: he seems to pass not only WP:ENT but also (more weakly) WP:GNG. Not all the sources in the article are reliable, not all are necessary, but ie this Canyon News-article sounds reliable and significant. Cavarrone (talk) 11:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - He's a stunt man, but so is Kane Hodder and Derek Mears for the most part. The GNG requires significant coverage from third party reliable sources. I'd say that he is on the edge of that (the sources do not provide a lot of "significant" coverages, as defined at the GNG, but a partially decent amount), and for me that's just on the side of keepable. It could use a lot of improvement an expanding, but that isn't a deletion issue.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He passes on both WP:GNG (In some of the sources) and WP:ENT. He has had notable roles as a stuntman and an actor according to his IMDB page, and seems to be getting more significant roles to date. If we choose to delete his article then we are stating that the above mentioned Derek Mears Kane Hodder and others of his genre of work are not significant to be a part of Wikipedia. I think there fans would argue different on this subject. I found some articles on Tait that were not on his page. [4] [5] and an article in French [6] ScifiGenius (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:48, 11 March 2012 (UTC). — ScifiGenius (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment It appears that Canyon News sells articles (or at least gives them "free" with the purchase of an ad), at least according to their current "Specials page" here (at the bottom of the page) and one dating back to at least 2008. I no longer think this is an RS, at least the "profile" articles. Those are the only in-depth news coverage he gets. And his SAG nomination was as one of an ensemble of more than 130 people who did stunts in the movie (here). Novaseminary (talk) 02:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response While it is never pleasant to address, sadly it is embarrassingly obvious that Novaseminary's newfound challenge on the "Canyon News" article, is a retaliatory RS attack - just because Cavarrone mentioned the source was "reliable and significant". I don't pretend to buy the basis, but using the same link, at best the source notes: "All articles will feature your business or personal profile in an unbiased and honest manner." Not really sure what that means (nor is the complaining editor); but if, in addition to the stories they'd normally cover, you may suggest/request/pay for a write up? If that is some alleged ad-for-article quid pro quo, then it's a pretty lousy one! You'd get the privilege of an article that only reports the truth?? Frankly, I'm missing the problem. But more importantly, I also note that the BLP carries many other RS that are beyond reproach and provide the same basic info, with several also in an interview format. But for those unaware of Novaseminary's history, this is the same editor who recently attempted - and failed - a speedy on this same BLP. This is also the same editor who, realizing this AfD also had the chance of failure: 1) attempted to marginalize the BLP by suddenly discovering and adding a stub with the same name; 2) To further dilute and confuse easy access to the BLP, suddenly created a "disambiguation" page consisting of entries of questionable worthiness and even homophones; 3) suddenly edited and then challenged the RS of "Canyon News"; 4) suddenly stalked me and my past edits at another article I contributed to, and made several counterproductive and wholesale edits: [7], [8], [9], diff blatantly appears to have tendentiously edited it, simply for opposing this BLP. 5) Also note the number of attempts, [10], [11], in just the last couple days where the same editor has obviously edited the BLP to attempt to negatively impact notability by deleting sources and making NPOV edits while editors are reviewing the article for this AfD. Which suggests that even that editor realizes the BLP is notable and the AfD will likely not succeed. Otherwise why delete N and not add any? The editor also attempts to retaliate with 3RR threats when those repeated efforts are exposed and addressed. Editors are advised to review the BLP log and not simply the article in whatever may be it's current incarnation before voting on the AfD. But it is most instructive to note: 6) this same editor recently just survived an ANI for the exact same behavior, just 3 months ago - simply because the originating editor, even after enormous feedback supporting the ANI, was gracious enough to elect not to pursue the ANI to conclusion - but not before stating:"Due to the cleverness of this individual, an RFC/U that communicates what this individual has been doing to other people would take me at least 20 hours. Possibly/probably/hopefully this process here will have caused some change. I am amenable to considering this here to be closed with no resolution here but no action requested at this time." I will leave it to other editors reviewing this record to determine the effectiveness of that decision. As well as the motive - and substance - of this AfD. X4n6 (talk) 13:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also the Screen Actors Guild Awards are major awards that help establish N. See WP:ANYBIO #1. Try as the editor might, the Award enhances Notability. The Award's organization determines rules of eligibility and the number of nominees. A nomination is a nomination, regardless if there are 2 or 2,000 nominees. Contrast the number of nominees to the number of eligible people in a category in the hundreds of other released films that year who were not nominated. X4n6 (talk) 14:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tait has not garnered deep coverage anywhere except the Canyon News profiles (possible RSs, as I mentioned in the nom, though now I don't think so at all) and a few blog "interviews" (as wonderful as they may be, clearly not RSs for WP purposes). It is significant in analyzing coverage if the only possible RS significant, in-depth coverage was bought by the subject or his publicist or could have been. And stop with the personal attacks. I brought this here because the speedy tag was removed, as I noted in the nom. My motive for trying to cleanup the article was to prevent WP from being used for promotional purposes. (I wonder if X4n6 would be willing to state s/he is unaffiliated with Tait and following WP:COI?) In cleaning up the article, it became pretty clear to me that the real coverage of and roles by this person fail N. That is why I think the article should be deleted, X4n6's efforts at obscuring through adding every tangential mention of Tait in a blog or fan forum that he can find notwithstanding.. Novaseminary (talk) 18:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Deep coverage" is a rather nebulous term. Is an abundance of coverage from various difference sources considered "deep"? Clearly most think so. How about unquestionable RS like the New York Times, or authoritative film industry publications like the Hollywood Reporter? Again, it appears so. Or a litany of film industry specific sources knowledgeable on the subject? Again yes. Could "deep coverage" even be defined by the results of a Google Image search? Quite likely. A long listing of industry-specific credits Certainly. How about personal appearances at conventions where autographs are so coveted that attendees pay a fee for them? Again, pretty strong. But taken altogether - "deep coverage" seems pretty convincingly established. X4n6 (talk) 20:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also it is certainly not a personal attack to note one's editing pattern. That claim is obviously just a diversionary tactic. Surely the evidence speaks for itself. As does more deflection claiming/questioning WP:COI where no evidence corroborating it exists. It's all just a smoke-screen designed to obscure the facts of your editing history and techniques. X4n6 (talk) 20:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. That is trivial coverage. Read Wikipedia:BASIC#cite_note-note5-5. And IMDB is not an RS, (WP:IMDB). The Canyon News articles are "in-depth", but as a pay-for-coverage source, cannot be considered for N purposes, no matter how riveting or accurate. Novaseminary (talk) 20:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)t[reply]
To the contrary, read WP:BASIC. And WP:ENT. And WP:ARTIST And WP:ANYBIO.X4n6 (talk) 20:38, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't understand why Douglas Tait is even brought up for deletion. He is a notable figure on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScifiGenius (talk • contribs) 18:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might want to read WP:AfD. You don't get to !vote twice; this isn't a vote anyway. Novaseminary (talk) 18:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • ScifiGenius, on just the question of voting, Novaseminary is correct. One vote per editor please and thank you for yours. However you may certainly comment as much as you'd like on this AfD - just no more votes. :) Thanks and Welcome to Wikipedia! X4n6 (talk) 21:57, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- I see three ways this actor could pass notability via WP:BIO-- 1) WP:ENT; 2) WP:CREATIVE; 3) or WP:BASIC--but I do not think he quite does. 1) For WP:ENT, I do not see anyone arguing he passes No. 3. I do not think he meets No. 1 because his most significant roles were minor characters in notable movies, stuntman parts playing major characters--but not being the actual actor credited with playing the part--in notable movies, and major roles in non-notable movies. I do not see that as the same as "significant roles in multiple notable films". For No. 2, I do not see any reliable sources that say something like "Tait has a large fan base". Many fan sites or discussions of fan sites is not the same as a reliable source saying so, even if that would be enough to support a journalist to say so. 2) For WP:CREATIVE, I do not think anyone could argue for Nos. 2, 4, or 5. For No. 1, I do not know whether this applies at all to this sort of filmmaker. It does not look like he is well-known yet for his filmmaking or that others reference his work. For No. 3, I do not see his film being reviewed as this one requires to pass. 3) For WP:BASIC, he needs to have received coverage in "multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Moreover, "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." I see a good deal of trivial coverage--not to say unimportant coverage, but lists of cast members, even in a reliable source do not pass it in my opinion. I do see several Canyon News articles that undoubtedly have "the depth of coverage" WP:BASIC calls for to pass. In fact, I see one more than mentioned in the nomination. They were both written by Tommy Garrett. I am not sure if this is the publicist Tommy Garrett described in this biography or this news article, but this Canyon News piece makes it seem so. Even if not, I do not think we can consider the Canyon News pieces to be "intellectually independent of each other" because they were written by the same person. I also do not think we know whether the stories meet the independent sources criteria to help pass WP:BASIC as stated in WP:IS, especially if one can write their own article and have it published (however true it may be) if they buy a certain number of advertisements. Also related to this criteria, I see many blog or fan articles and interviews that do not meet the "reliable" criteria of WP:BASIC, not because I think they are lying or anything, but because they would not meet that criteria as described in WP:RS. The Inkless Magazine article is a close call. Ultimately I do not is meets WP:RS either. Even commenters to the articles seem to refer to it as a blog. Its publisher describes it on this webpage, but I can't find much else to support it as a reliable source as described in WP:RS. Conclusion, because I do not think any of the WP:BASIC criteria are fully passed, I do not think this actor passes notability, though it is a close case. This is not to say he will not in the future, but this may be a case of WP:NotJustYet. Hoppingalong (talk) 04:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- For WP:ENT No. 3, he is a stuntman mostly. He does not seem to have "created" the minor creature characters he has played that were not stunt roles, either. I'm not sure what his unique contribution is. You sure do sound like his publicist! Regardless, I stick with my analysis. Maybe some day he will pass notability, though. Hoppingalong (talk) 13:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response -- Re: WP:ENT #3, if you read through all my comments, I noted that the subject has 44 credits as an actor vs. 16 as a stuntman, so in fairness that really doesn't equate to calling someone a stuntman "mostly"; nor can you fairly call them "minor" roles if the actor playing them gets billing and named in articles, interviews and other publicity. However, I do agree that some of his most notable work is as a creature character actor but that's still really not a stuntman, despite the easy confusion from labeling it as such. Also re: WP:ENT #3, actors as a rule are routinely credited with "creating the roles they play". Also remember, notability and celebrity aren't the same thing. I believe the sheer volume of material indicates the subject clearly has one, but who knows if he'll ever attain the other? Although among fans of the horror film genre, there's probably a strong case that some would make that he already has the latter too! I certainly wouldn't spend £15 for a non-celebrity autograph - or even a celebrity one for that matter! As for me being a publicist? Ha! I wish I could get paid for contributing on WP, like I'm sure we all do! But no, I'm just defending an article I helped to start, against what I feel is just the latest unwarranted attack by one editor. Your WP:ENT #3 view notwithstanding, I guess all the other applicable WP policies also weren't enough. But I asked you to review and very graciously, you did. So I really can't ask for more. Many thanks again! X4n6 (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Douglas Tait is an actor with major and minor film credits. He has a few stunt credits and won a SAG award with stunts. Hoppingalong calling him a stuntman shows that he didn't do the proper research on his career and it is unfair in my opinion to speak on this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.206.131.74 (talk) 01:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment He did not win a SAG Award. He was nominated for a stunt ensemble award along with over 130 other coworkers who were members of the ensemble. They lost. Novaseminary (talk) 01:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response The IP made a pretty valid point that can't be ignored simply because the comment was unsigned. Win or lose, a nomination for a major award IS a nomination for a major award. It really doesn't matter if there is just 1 nominee or a million. This isn't a counting contest. This IS a nomination for a major award, given by their peers in the industry. But since there is still apparent confusion about the Award, the organization which sponsors it gives the best explanation for it than anyone else here could:
"Lauded by critics for its style, simplicity and genuine warmth, the Screen Actors Guild Awards®, which made its debut in 1995, has become one of the industry’s most prized honors. The only televised awards show to exclusively honor performers, it presents thirteen awards for acting in film and television in a fast moving two hour show which airs live on TNT and TBS. The awards focus on both individual performances as well as on the work of the entire ensemble of a drama series and comedy series, and the cast of a motion picture. These honors are fundamental to the spirit of the Screen Actors Guild Awards because they recognize what all actors know – that acting is a collaborative art." [38]
So it's complete and utter nonsense to prattle about how many times someone is nominated or with how many other people in their ensemble they enjoy a nomination or if they "lost". Bottomline: they were still NOMINATED, were they not? Ask Susan Lucci[39]. Ask Meryl Streep[40]. X4n6 (talk) 02:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Your broken-record, straw-grasping response continues to miss the point and you willfully along with it. Suit yourself. It doesn't change the facts: 1) Subject was nominated. 2) Award is significant and notable. 3) Subject was nominated. The End. Are you saying whether the Award airs or not makes it less of an Award? Seriously? But by the way, Streep has also been nominated for this Award: won twice. But... "Lost" 10 times. "Lost" 4 times as part of an ENSEMBLE.[41] Ouch. So you were saying? X4n6 (talk) 03:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You sure do pivot on a dime when your point goes up in flames. But not so fast! First it was general hand-wringing and teeth-gnashing because the subject was (gasp!) nominated in an Ensemble for a major Award - that he "lost". Oh the humanity! But your claim got no traction. Then you discovered that no less an artist than Meryl Streep [42] suffered the same fate - with the same Award - also in an ensemble - 4 times! - and suddenly we hear only the crickets on that argument. But now just as suddenly, it's the end of life as we know it that he promotes his own BLP in social media?? I'm sure you'll share your knowledge of just what WP policy that violates. Perhaps WP:DONTEVERGOOGLEYOURSELF? X4n6 (talk) 05:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - This BLP and it's subject achieve WP:N in the following policies: WP:ENT #1, #2, and #3, WP:BIO, WP:BASIC #1 & #2, WP:CREATIVE/WP:ARTIST #1, #3 and #4c, WP:ANYBIO #1 and #2, and WP:GNG #1 and #2. Several sources meet WP:RS. A review of all the sources: in so many different areas and for so many different things, all equal N., despite the dogged efforts of a single-minded editor, who brought this forum shopped [43] AfD with no support or consensus. Conclusion: Obviously, no article/subject ever needs them all. But per WP:PEOPLE, any policy or combination of these policies establishes notability and justifies the "Strong Keep". X4n6 (talk) 06:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It has become clear that this isn't an issue about Douglas Tait's notability. Novaseminary obviously has a personal issue with the actor. Did he bully you in high school? If you stepped outside the world of Wikipedia, you might realize that SOCIAL MEDIA sites like Facebook and Twitter are used to talk about, and promote oneself. Bringing up issues like that is clearly a personal attack and you sir are a "single-minded editor with dogged efforts". ScifiGenius (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:08, 13 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

  • Comment -- I just reverted the non-admin closure of this AfD. While I may not agree with everything Novaseminary has written, having reviewed all of the sourcing (as I noted above in my delete !vote), there is very little in the way of reliable sources cited in the article. What reliable sources are cited have nothing but minimal mention of Tait. The !vote itself is 4 to 2, with one of the "keepers" having had no unrelated edits and a minimal grasp of Wikipedia policies. One of the other "keepers" created the article and is, at the very least, somewhat invested in it, though there is no shame in that, of course. Another of the "keepers" did not address whether it matters whether the primary source of "in-depth" coverage of Tait "sells" articles (however accurate those articles might be). The other "keeper" was a "weak keep". I think this AfD could benefit from a relist to allow others to actually review the sources. Hoppingalong (talk) 21:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response -- Respectfully, just a couple things I'd like noted. First, is that this AfD was initiated on March 6th and discussion is supposed to remain open for 7 days. This discussion wasn't closed by a non-admin until March 15th, a full 9 days later. No additional comments have been made on this board prior to that closure since March 13th, two days ago - and the 7th day. So it would reasonably appear, in defense of the non-admin closure, that discussion has ended. I would also note that a 4-2 still represents a clear consensus, and whether you're discussing a "Weak keep" or a "Weak delete", we still have to respect the eds decisions. As I did when Hoppingalong reviewed additional material, per my request, but elected not to vote differently. So be it.
However, my second concern is that this BLP continues to be edited and sources removed by Novaseminary, in what could be characterized as part of an effort to either delete or weaken, then delete the BLP. So if a relist is ultimately decided on, despite all the discussion that we've already had, I would simply request that we at some point tamp down edits during that period, so that eds can actually review the whole article on the merits - not whatever hacksawed version might appear at any particular time. If they deem a source doesn't meet RS or determine that it does, so be it - but they can't make that judgment in a vacuum. It can only be made IF the source has not been removed during the process. X4n6 (talk) 03:38, 16 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Douglas_Tait&oldid=1049909073"