Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eru Potaka-Dewes

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 Snow Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eru Potaka-Dewes[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod, only claim to notability is small parts in a few films. Ridernyc (talk) 14:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He had significant roles in multiple notable films, e.g. Rapa-Nui, Maori Merchant of Venice and The Piano, besides press coverage on his death also showed that his work as activist was notable. Honestly, what is this all about? I wrote the same article in German where we have quite stricter notability guidelines and even there no one doubts the relevance of this person. Quite ridiculous. --NiTen (talk) 14:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's wonderfull simply provide us with independent sources that establish notability and we can move on. Also WP:OTHERSTUFF will not work for articles on here so it really won't work cross wiki. Ridernyc (talk) 15:01, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article lists at least three independent sources, how many do you need? --NiTen (talk) 15:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources that cover his life and career before his death and not simply obituaries would be a good start. To be clear articles that were written and published while he was still alive. Ridernyc (talk) 15:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So obituaries on the websites of Radio New Zealand, The New Zealand Herald and the Anglican Church of NZ are not indicating notability? Anyway, you may find further sources here. E.g. here he is called a "experienced Maori actor" and here he's quoted on his activities for the indigenous people. Roger Ebert praises his acting here. --NiTen (talk) 15:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The obituaries cited do cover the subject's life and career before his death. The fact that they were published on the occasion of his death doesn't detract from their status as independent reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's worth remembering that just because you haven't heard of someone doesn't mean that they're not notable. --Roman à clef (talk) 20:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The three obituaries listed as sources in the article (which all clearly appear to be journalist-written rather than paid family obits) give him the depth of coverage in reliable sources needed to pass WP:GNG. And the nominator's insistence on deleting this adequately-sourced and brand new article (first by prod and now by AfD) strikes me as more than a little WP:BITEy, although the article creator is not a newcomer. In any case the nominator's claim that he was only known as an actor (not exactly a strong reason to delete) is also not true: he was also known as an activist. See e.g. [1] (Highbeam access required) which mentions him in the context of a set of 2007 police raids on known activists and in the context of a 1987 speech in parliament denouncing him for his activism. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the above reasons. Cavarrone (talk) 06:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep easily enough for notability, although the article needs expanding. NealeFamily (talk) 02:56, 29 October 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.