Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Shakar

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 keep. MBisanz talk 02:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Shakar[edit]

Martin Shakar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

American actor with no notable roles. The clearly auto-generated three-sentence stub claims he appeared in 24 films, but counts appearances on television shows. No sources other than IMDB, nor even the slightest claim of notability: essentially, a re-purposed IMDB entry of no encyclopaedic value. CalendarWatcher (talk) 22:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - As the following Google News search shows, [1], Mr. Shakar has recieved coverage from verifiable - creditable - 3rd party sources. If an article can be made to fall within the general bounds of inclusion under Notability, with a little rewrite and the adding of sources, it is not a reason to delete. 23:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Most of those hits mention him as part of the cast of some play. They don't actually cover him in the sense that he himself gets discussed in detail. - Mgm|(talk) 00:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarM 22:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No reliable sources that show notability per WP:ENTERTAINER. Schuym1 (talk) 23:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per the guidelines, multiple "lessor" mentions are acceptable if substantive ones are not available, as long as they are not simply trivial. The multiple reliable sources at Google News may not be substantive, but they are not merely trivial. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
None of those even rise to level of "lesser coverage" they are just playbills that list this fellow as being in the cast. L0b0t (talk) 04:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strange, the guide-lines I'm reading say ...trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. Lessor mentions, I can imagine, would be perfectly adequate for sourcing facts for people whose notability has already been established, but I fail to see how they in any way, shape or form illustrate or are evidence of any sort of wider acclaim in the first place. Nor can I understand how the addition of yet another user-edited page and an obviously auto-generated CV page can count as 'reliable sources': rather, it seems a desperate attempt to 'rescue' a minor-actor's-CV-passing-as-a-biography that should never been auto-generated to begin with.
This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, not some amateurish re-creation of IMDB: there should be some reason for this article other than a very short CV. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 12:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – As an encyclopedia there are many areas for inclusion. One of the ones at Wikipedia is Entertainer where it states: “… Have had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions”. Though Shahar has not starred in his numerous roles, he has played significant parts in the films – TV and theater productions he has appeared in. Thus is eligible for inclusion under Entertainer. Thanks ShoesssS Talk 13:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Significant role in Saturday Night Fever and other roles warrant inclusion, in my opinion.--Stetsonharry (talk) 14:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: But who can blame CalendarWatcher for nominating, this article's tiny, could easily be expanded. Ryan4314 (talk) 06:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – No blame assigned :-). This is what AFD is for. ShoesssS Talk 13:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it's just that I saw a suggestion that a nominator be reprimanded for "abuse" of the AFD process here. Ryan4314 (talk) 22:11, 10 December 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Martin_Shakar&oldid=1138059098"