Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jordan Matthews
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, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 19:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jordan Matthews[edit]
- Jordan Matthews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
The fourth recreation of a speedied non-notable biography. Notability is vaguely asserted but an examination of the citations reveals that some don't refer to the individual named, merely his associates, and the rest are not reliable sources. I wanted to get the community's opinion of this so the article could be conclusively dealt with. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Pretty clear delete in my opinion. Sources don't meet reliability standards. Maybe once the movie comes out (assuming it does, many never do) he'll have sources and can be listed then. Until then no way. DreamGuy (talk) 20:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No reliable sources for notability.--Boffob (talk) 20:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Individual is a signed model and an actor offered two roles in two movies. Two media junkets referred to him as "Hollywood's Next 'It Boy'." He is also modeling with celebrity photographers and has been approached for deals with notable, top tier clothiers and began a production company, Foresight Media Group, Inc.DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 20:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Delete Rwiggum has done a nice and neat job of convincing me that my analysis of this article and the merit of its sources was poor. Perhaps this article can be reconstructed when these movies are out and he shows up in every months' People Magazine.
- Strong Delete. Article reads like a vanity page for a non-notable model. The sources provided are either extremely short articles with only a passing mention of the subject, or a re-print of a press release (not to mention the dead link). Clear delete. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 21:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- He will be in 2 movies -- how many have you been in? And Reuters had two press releases about him -- how many have you been in? I'm not trying to attack you -- I haven't been in any myself, either! But he has, so just because there is a dead link doesn't mean that he's no notable. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 21:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The keyword there is "will". That brings up a clear violation of WP:CRYSTAL that nobody has mentioned yet. Moreso, it doesn't matter if someone has been in a movie and I haven't, it matters that they are notable, an Mr. Matthews clearly is not yet. Maybe if the movies are successful, but as of now he is not. Also, anyone can send out a press release, but they cannot be used to verify notability, as per WP:SELFPUB. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 22:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Your strawman arguments are insufficient foundation for supporting your assertions. WP:Crystal clearly states:
- Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced. It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analysis. In forward-looking articles about unreleased products, such as movies and games, take special care to avoid advertising and unverified claims. In particular:
- Your strawman arguments are insufficient foundation for supporting your assertions. WP:Crystal clearly states:
- The keyword there is "will". That brings up a clear violation of WP:CRYSTAL that nobody has mentioned yet. Moreso, it doesn't matter if someone has been in a movie and I haven't, it matters that they are notable, an Mr. Matthews clearly is not yet. Maybe if the movies are successful, but as of now he is not. Also, anyone can send out a press release, but they cannot be used to verify notability, as per WP:SELFPUB. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 22:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- He will be in 2 movies -- how many have you been in? And Reuters had two press releases about him -- how many have you been in? I'm not trying to attack you -- I haven't been in any myself, either! But he has, so just because there is a dead link doesn't mean that he's no notable. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 21:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented.
- The writer/producer Metcalf has been tied to this actor and the film is in preproduction as of the date of the citation. A movie will be notable once it comes out, so verifiable anticipation is clearly not a violation, despite your assertions to the contrary -- please reverse your stance. The citations that were so unjustly deleted were not substantiating notability -- Hollywood Reporter is substantiating notability, and the others are being used to substantiate assertions made by the sentences they followed, before they were so unfairly removed. This so controversial, that there must be 5 independant, third party sources -- one large source is enough to substantiate notability. Then there are press release sites and the other sources which were, once again, so unjustly removed. Mostbeautifulman.com is independant and third party -- Jordan Matthews neither works for or with the editors of the website. Your unilateral deletion of independant, third party sources is unwarranted, belligerant and contrary to Wikipedia policy -- you are overpolicing with assumed, imaginary regulatory powers. The fact that some of the sources may be self-published doesn't invalidate them for informing the Wikipedia article about Matthews' birthdate or production company. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 03:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For one, I did not remove any sources. Rather, I merely removed repeated uses of the SAME source to avoid redundancy. Likewise, I think that YOU are the one with Straw Man problems ("How many movies have YOU been in?") The WP:CRYSTAL problem here is not that the movie may not exist, but that the movie may not end up being NOTABLE. If the only thing giving a subject notbility is a film role, then that film role must be notable. If the film is not out yet, then notability cannot be assessed. What's more, the Hollywoodreporter.com source does not assert notability for the subject. If you read WP:BIO, you will see that a subject has to have SUBSTATIAL coverage from third-party sources. The story provided only mentions that he was CAST in the film. The sentence is only five words, how can that assert notability for an entire article? So no, I will not be reversing my stance. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 03:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- He is cast in two movies. Who gets cast in two movies -- not someone who is non-notable. He's not going to be the lead's sister's boyfriend's cousin's neighbor -- he's a lead in one of the two films, and we don't know about the secodnd movie yet. If the Hollywood Reporter and the LA Times both say that he's the newest, up-and-coming talent, that makes him notable. I apologize for my comments about 'how many movies have you been in' -- that was to assert the point I reiterate at the start of this paragraph -- they were not meant as a strawman argument, but as a valid assessment of his notabilty over, for instance, you or me. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 03:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There have been PLENTY of non-notable actors to be cast in films. Do you realize how many up-and-coming struggling actors there are? Should they ALL get their own page? And you're right; We DON'T know about the second movie yet, so that shouldn't even BEGIN to come into the discussion on notability. When did Hollywood Reporter and Th LA Times call him "the newest, up-and-coming talent?" I don't remember that in any of the sources presented on the page, and even if those words appeared somewhere on their website, it was likely a press-release reprint like the Reuters stories. Just because a publication reprints a press-release does not mean that they endorse the content within. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 03:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not here to fight -- only to debate. To begin, I'd like to apologize. This was getting heated up a bit back there, so let me just state my case, and you can state yours. I see this article being put up for deletion because it was poorly written, poorly formatted, poorly sourced. It turns out that there was a lot more information available, but the creating editor failed to collect it and place it in proper format in the article. It was therefor tagged. As the article stands now, there is enough to substantiate Matthews as a notable rising star. You claim that press releases mean nothing (or little -- not here to put words in your mouth), but with 3 or 4 or 5 -- they can't mean nothing. And they are in addition to the the hollywood reportor and now a San Francisco television station online article. The fact that these things are reported by news stations means the press releases are notable -- I don't think it's fair to claim that they are 'just press releases.' You claim that there are dozens if not scores if not perhaps hundreds of non-notable actors that are cast in films. But an actor who is cast in 3 films in the course of a year -- that's why these press releases are calling him "the latest hot star" and "Hollywood's biggest secret" and whatever else they are calling him. You claimed that these were sensationalism at best, so I removed them from the article. It was my impression that these quotes could be integrated as long as they were not only sourced but cited in-line as the opinion/interpretation of XYZ as opposed to being an objective fact -- but I removed them nonetheless. He is an established models, according to the sources and an up-and-coming 3-movies-in-1-year heartthrob star -- why do you mount such hesitation and unwillingness to allow for this article to exist. From the sources, it seems objective that he is not just another film actor. Once again, I didn't start this article and I never even heard of him before coming across his name on the AfD list, but once I checked him out, the sources are proving him legitimate! DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 04:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is, Press releases are NOT reliable sources, in any case whatsoever. Press releases are written and put out by a publicist hired by someone to make them look good, which means they are not reliable. I can write up a press release saying that I'm "One of Hollywood's most rugged action heroes", but that doesn't mean that it's true. Among all else, sources need to be Reliable. Self-published sources are never, ever EVER reliable sources. Also, it isn't that these sites chose the press release to reprint - to do so would be a major blow to their journalistic credibility - Rather, they subscribe to a service that automatically feeds various press releases to a certain place on their website. Thus, it does not qualify as a "Reuters article", it is simply a press release that is on Reuters' website. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 05:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But what you say is not what the policy says -- self-published sources are not never, ever EVER accepted. If you read the policy, the only claim you may have is that articles should not be based on these types of sources. I think 2 or 3 sources is enough to substantiate an article like this, and the rest are just icing, like to substantiate his birthday, etc. IMDb and Hollywood Reporter are both not press releases and the press releases are only elaborating on the information already provided as substantiated by those two sources -- it's not ridiculously new information, but rather some more information that get updated every time there's a new press release. Something written prior to his second movie obviously can't talk about his third movie. I don't see why there is such a hesitation to -- not, "let this one slip by" (I don't think this is a case of slipping by) -- allow this article to exist on the merits of its presented sources. Is there some source making all of this controversial or negating the validity of this information. Do we really need 5 or 10 sources to say that someone is a notable actor -- 2 or 3 isn't enough? DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 05:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- IMDB is edited by anyone off the street, so it has no more reliability than a press release. Hollywood Reporter clearly states some other actor is the star and mentions a Jordan Matthews as being currently cast in it too, but with no further information. Casting information also frequently changes, so it's not reliable at this point. There's nothing to show this person has any notability, and, frankly, the only evidene existing now suggests that he's not at all notable YET... having some fan put wildly hyperbolic statements in support of him doesn;t change it either. From your over the top support and misunderstanding of policies I think you may have a WP:COI problem here... certainly a problem with understanding other fundamental policies. 15:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- But the problem is that none of the non-press-release sources have enough content to signify notability. They're short sentences that simply MENTION that he is in a movie. It isn't a good precedent to have an article that relies this heavily on self-published material. The problem with letting this article exist on the merits of it's presented sources is that its presented sources to not establish the subject's notability. And no, we don't need ten sources to prove a subject's notability. Hell, just one source would do if it actually established that the subject was notable. But you have to realize that simply starring in a movie does not make someone notable.. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 05:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But what you say is not what the policy says -- self-published sources are not never, ever EVER accepted. If you read the policy, the only claim you may have is that articles should not be based on these types of sources. I think 2 or 3 sources is enough to substantiate an article like this, and the rest are just icing, like to substantiate his birthday, etc. IMDb and Hollywood Reporter are both not press releases and the press releases are only elaborating on the information already provided as substantiated by those two sources -- it's not ridiculously new information, but rather some more information that get updated every time there's a new press release. Something written prior to his second movie obviously can't talk about his third movie. I don't see why there is such a hesitation to -- not, "let this one slip by" (I don't think this is a case of slipping by) -- allow this article to exist on the merits of its presented sources. Is there some source making all of this controversial or negating the validity of this information. Do we really need 5 or 10 sources to say that someone is a notable actor -- 2 or 3 isn't enough? DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 05:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is, Press releases are NOT reliable sources, in any case whatsoever. Press releases are written and put out by a publicist hired by someone to make them look good, which means they are not reliable. I can write up a press release saying that I'm "One of Hollywood's most rugged action heroes", but that doesn't mean that it's true. Among all else, sources need to be Reliable. Self-published sources are never, ever EVER reliable sources. Also, it isn't that these sites chose the press release to reprint - to do so would be a major blow to their journalistic credibility - Rather, they subscribe to a service that automatically feeds various press releases to a certain place on their website. Thus, it does not qualify as a "Reuters article", it is simply a press release that is on Reuters' website. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 05:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not here to fight -- only to debate. To begin, I'd like to apologize. This was getting heated up a bit back there, so let me just state my case, and you can state yours. I see this article being put up for deletion because it was poorly written, poorly formatted, poorly sourced. It turns out that there was a lot more information available, but the creating editor failed to collect it and place it in proper format in the article. It was therefor tagged. As the article stands now, there is enough to substantiate Matthews as a notable rising star. You claim that press releases mean nothing (or little -- not here to put words in your mouth), but with 3 or 4 or 5 -- they can't mean nothing. And they are in addition to the the hollywood reportor and now a San Francisco television station online article. The fact that these things are reported by news stations means the press releases are notable -- I don't think it's fair to claim that they are 'just press releases.' You claim that there are dozens if not scores if not perhaps hundreds of non-notable actors that are cast in films. But an actor who is cast in 3 films in the course of a year -- that's why these press releases are calling him "the latest hot star" and "Hollywood's biggest secret" and whatever else they are calling him. You claimed that these were sensationalism at best, so I removed them from the article. It was my impression that these quotes could be integrated as long as they were not only sourced but cited in-line as the opinion/interpretation of XYZ as opposed to being an objective fact -- but I removed them nonetheless. He is an established models, according to the sources and an up-and-coming 3-movies-in-1-year heartthrob star -- why do you mount such hesitation and unwillingness to allow for this article to exist. From the sources, it seems objective that he is not just another film actor. Once again, I didn't start this article and I never even heard of him before coming across his name on the AfD list, but once I checked him out, the sources are proving him legitimate! DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 04:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There have been PLENTY of non-notable actors to be cast in films. Do you realize how many up-and-coming struggling actors there are? Should they ALL get their own page? And you're right; We DON'T know about the second movie yet, so that shouldn't even BEGIN to come into the discussion on notability. When did Hollywood Reporter and Th LA Times call him "the newest, up-and-coming talent?" I don't remember that in any of the sources presented on the page, and even if those words appeared somewhere on their website, it was likely a press-release reprint like the Reuters stories. Just because a publication reprints a press-release does not mean that they endorse the content within. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 03:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- He is cast in two movies. Who gets cast in two movies -- not someone who is non-notable. He's not going to be the lead's sister's boyfriend's cousin's neighbor -- he's a lead in one of the two films, and we don't know about the secodnd movie yet. If the Hollywood Reporter and the LA Times both say that he's the newest, up-and-coming talent, that makes him notable. I apologize for my comments about 'how many movies have you been in' -- that was to assert the point I reiterate at the start of this paragraph -- they were not meant as a strawman argument, but as a valid assessment of his notabilty over, for instance, you or me. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 03:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For one, I did not remove any sources. Rather, I merely removed repeated uses of the SAME source to avoid redundancy. Likewise, I think that YOU are the one with Straw Man problems ("How many movies have YOU been in?") The WP:CRYSTAL problem here is not that the movie may not exist, but that the movie may not end up being NOTABLE. If the only thing giving a subject notbility is a film role, then that film role must be notable. If the film is not out yet, then notability cannot be assessed. What's more, the Hollywoodreporter.com source does not assert notability for the subject. If you read WP:BIO, you will see that a subject has to have SUBSTATIAL coverage from third-party sources. The story provided only mentions that he was CAST in the film. The sentence is only five words, how can that assert notability for an entire article? So no, I will not be reversing my stance. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 03:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The issue is not whether the article is well-formatted or not. The actor in question already has an IMDB entry, and that only lists some upcoming film roles, so he is clearly not notable as an actor. As for the modelling, there is definitely not "substantial" independent coverage of his career. Let IMDB do its job of listing all actors, notable or not, and let WP do its job of providing encyclopedic coverage of notable topics. --Slashme (talk) 11:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The keyword seems to be 'Vanity Page.' Stijndon (talk) 14:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails notability and verifiability criteria. References in article appear to be reprints of the same story(ies). Confirmation that he has been cast in movies which themselves fail the future films criteria doesn't assert his notability, importance, or significants in accordance with our policies and guidelines. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - non-notable and unsourced. Biruitorul Talk 04:02, 5 August 2008 (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.