Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Logan Williams (2nd nomination)

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 delete. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 03:20, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logan Williams (actor)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

With respect to the deceased, I don't believe his having recently died makes this teen notable in the Wikipedia sense of the word. All of the sources from major news media outlets exist because of his death. Anything else is trivial or unreliable (for example, the source about trading cards is just a fan-made list of them, not even any kind of critical commentary on them). The Joey Awards are non-notable and there is no independent coverage about him winning the award. On the whole, we are not a memorial, and it's clear that the coverage (at this stage) wouldn't exist in the absence of his death. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Side note since I just realized: this is actually the first nomination for Logan Williams the actor. The previous AfD is in regards to the subject now at Logan Williams (entrepreneur), which the creator of the current article moved there in order to create this article under the undisambiguated title. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. A case of WP:BLP1E. - Brojam (talk) 19:00, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep literal award-winning actor (the Joeys are Canada's youth awards, if Young in Hollywood and the Obies are notable, so are they) with a couple notable roles. Not 1E at all, which wouldn't even apply because the 'event' (his death, I assume you mean) doesn't have an article. His death has been reported on by the likes of Hollywood Reporter and Deadline, which not every actor gets. Fair coverage of his short career. Kingsif (talk) 19:16, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Of course BLP1E applies. You're completely misunderstanding that policy. It has nothing to do with the event having or not having an article. It has to do with the fact that reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, which is 100% accurate in this case. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:38, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Me misunderstanding? Am I not getting the 'living' part? Really, BIO1E might apply more, though I still don't consider death an 'event', which also notes that a person can be notable for more than one thing but only get sig. cov. for one, at which point they're still considered notable. I've seen RDs kept with less coverage than this, though I do consider here that he was a minor and swaying to delete in any case isn't a bad thing. Kingsif (talk) 14:43, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First, BLP applies (and has always applied) to recently deceased persons. Second, BLP1E has nothing to do with whether or not the event in question has an article, which is the argument you presented in your first post. So yes, I think it's quite accurate for me to say you were misunderstanding the meaning of that policy. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:31, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As a point of information, I've seen a few discussions before where bios have been kept when they are 1 event people, half the time because the event does not have an article but is covered suitable in the bio, the other half because they had semi-notability and were just put into the public eye because of the event. That's why I mentioned it. I could probably re-read BLP1E and find whatever part can be read for these situations, but since you know so much about it I guess it doesn't matter. While BLP covers RD, trying to argue that BLP1E is relevant when the 1E is death just seems against the point. Kingsif (talk) 04:16, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:44, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Both of those stories (merely recycling Tri-City News and AP) are about his mostly-private death (clearly after the virus became famous), only mentioning his brief career for context. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:31, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As a side note, there's no indication in any source that coronavirus had anything to do with his death. (His mother stating that social distancing has made grieving difficult is different). This is a recently-deceased teenager - we need to be careful about the assumptions we're making. This is exactly why BLP applies to the recently deceased. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:34, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The difficulties of grief have something to do with death, but yeah, not like that. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:52, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Phew! Could you not ping me in case of future harmony, though? Red bells get me feisty. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:45, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay sure, what about a thank? :) Valoem talk contrib 23:51, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're absolutely welcome! InedibleHulk (talk) 23:54, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Kingsif. --DavidHuai1999※Talk 07:04, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's not "Because of social distancing rules in effect during the COVID-19 pandemic his family can't grieve", but "The Flash's Young Barry Allen Actor Logan Williams Dies At 16". The current sources are enough to summarize the life of him, while not all describe his death. So this won't result in the problem of non-neutral.--游魂 (talk) 10:23, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This rationale makes no sense. The nomination has nothing to do with neutrality issues, but notability. All of the reliable sources are about his death; none of the coverage pre-dates it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:26, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. "[1] In addition to his death, the reports have enough content about his career, so this article has value to be kept. --游魂 (talk) 10:37, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per myself above. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTMEMORIAL, WP:RECENT, as well as WP:NOTNEWS. There is no doubt that notability was lacking and the recent event (death is an event) in news reports provides "imbalance" that does not advance notability. All this does is fuel speculation as to what really happened to the young actor, that didn't really have enough notability until a flurry of news events because of the death, is catapulted as becoming more important. Yes Wikipedia is dynamic, but these types of situations is why we have policies and guidelines directing us not to fall into the drama of being steered to becoming a newspaper, or falling for wanting to create a future "Death of" article as 8 out of 14 (57%) of the sources are about the "death of...". When considering the trading card and Joey awards (not notable) are added it is something like 86% of the sources do not advance notability but just providing ref bombing. Otr500 (talk) 10:32, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As a Canadian and some one that new Logan personally I find much of what is being said in here distasteful. Wikipedia represents a global community so if some Americans or Europeans have issues with the Joey awards as not being popular or well known in the USofA or Europe just think about some of the lesser known but locally iconic awards in your own little corner of the world. Joey awards are valid enough to not be discounted. Logans achievements should not be invalidated just because a bunch of Wikipedia users are fixated on the fact he died and for them that is the only notable moment in his young life. For others including co-stars and fans of the show Flash Logan work and life means a lot more pre-dating his death. He has a few shows under his belt, a award nomination. This makes him a public interest more so then some regular person. His page as its allowed to be completed is going to be like most other actor pages dead or alive. Most of his work is listed on IMDB because he never got around to setting up a wikipage yet. I guess I need to ask what exactly counts as a nobody to be deleted from Wikipeda. How many film credits, tv credits, awards does it take to go from a nobody to somebody worth being listed. I am curious huzur79 19:16, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find sources which give him significant coverage before his passing that would be a good start, I was not able to find anything giving him coverage prior to his death. Valoem talk contrib 08:22, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As a Canadian who watched Canadian TV closely from 1984 till 2009, this is the first I've heard of a Joey. No offense. Just is. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:44, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ WP:BLP1E
  • Keep As per Kingsif. twerk000 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:21, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The Joey Awards are not a notability-clinching award per WP:ANYBIO: that status does not just automatically attach to every award that exists, but applies only to awards that are notable enough to generate media coverage about the award presentation. In Canada, that's the Canadian Screen Awards and its predecessors, the Prix Iris, a small selection of top-tier film festivals (TIFF, VIFF, RVCQ) and the Toronto, Vancouver and Quebec film critics association awards — and kindly note that I'm saying this as a Canadian, so spare me the "you're just biased against Canadian topics" crap: I literally work on almost nothing but Canadian film and television, and basically am Wikipedia's entire Canadian film project task force. It works the same for every award everywhere: if the award can be referenced only to its own self-published website about itself, because media coverage about the award presentation is nonexistent, then it is not an award that makes its winners notable for winning it, regardless of whether it's a Canadian, American, British, Australian, German, Italian, Spanish, Indian or Nigerian award. The notability test for awards is not "it's Country X's version of this other thing from Country Y", it's "the award gets coverage about it in real media".
    But there's no stronger notability claim being made here, and there's very little in the way of quality reliable source coverage: except for the blip of death-announcement coverage itself, literally everything else here is referenced to blogs and primary sources that aren't support for notability at all. This is not how you demonstrate that an actor is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 22:03, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bearcat. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:54, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the concentration of the article and the sources used all apply to one event so it is a case of WP:BLP1E. Take away the coverage about his death and there is not enough left to satisfy BASIC/GNG. Mysticair667537 (talk) 21:11, 9 April 2020 (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/Logan_Williams_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=950639291"