Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Bollner

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 on Richard Genellefor delete the rest. Secret ^account 06:11, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Bollner[edit]

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

Contested Proposed deletion saying this individual fails WP:NACTOR, which is true being that he only acted once, did not contribute to the entertainment world in any way nor win any awards or recognition for his acting, lacks a significant fan base, and the accounting firm he is now running does not look notable either. The editor who removed the PROD gave an extremely weak rationale for doing that. To say that a one-time actor is notable just because the film he/she acted in was super popular violates WP:NOTINHERITED and the idea of people having "possible interest" in what these former child actors did after quitting is pure WP:FANCRUFT. Neither circumstance affects our guidelines for determining whether or not an actor is notable to have an article here. I am nominating the following related pages because both are also one-time actors who fail WP:NACTOR as they lack a significant fan base, made no contributions to the acting industry in any way, and PROD templates for both articles were removed without providing a reason.

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

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

Genelle's only notable role was Ernie in Power Rangers while Jung only had two minor roles before her untimely death (the sentence at the start of the article saying she was "best known for her role in the soap opera TV Novel: Dear Love" is a complete overstatement). While her suicide was tragic, it fails WP:EVENT being that it had no constant, long-term or worldwide coverage and not likely impact in the entertainment world in a significant way. Any media attention basically died down within days of her death. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 14:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question - so are you proposing to selectively merge the content on Bollner and other Wonka child actors into the film article and redirect Michael Bollner? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer - No, there is really no point in that. The notability of each child actor is not the same. Julie Dawn Cole and Denise Nickerson have done numerous other notable film roles while Peter Ostrum has made other contributions that merit an article. Paris Themmen, however, seems to not be very notable either, but I won't nominate him for AfD until after I learn more about him. As for your question on my talk page, I don't see the problem with bundling these actors because they have two things in common: 1) They all fail WP:NACTOR in every way, 2) A proposed deletion template was removed either without a reason, or very weak one. Unfortunately, I don't think there is a way to separate a bundled AfD once it has been created, so if at least one of the article is not deleted after the AfD closes, I will simply renominate it/them for deletion at a later time unless notability can be established. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 14:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Surely there is a way. Just pull the AfD tags from Genelle and Ayul. Neither of them are going to pass AfD - Ayul has literally 100s of Korean print sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You really shouldn't be bundling three unrelated actors into one nomination. That being said:

Delete Bollner. Fails NACTOR with a minor role in a major film, and there's nothing else.

Weak keep Genelle. I'm not familiar with the Power Rangers, but a longtime supporting role in a popular series seems (barely) sufficient for me.

Delete Ayul. Fails NACTOR and her suicide hasn't, as far as I can tell, had any long lasting significance. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay

Delete Bollner. but save ref to bottom of Wonka film article.

Weak keep Richard Genelle. inevitable, popular series

Keep Jung Ayul significant discussion and heart-wringing in Korean press (see Korean article), some of refs on the more serious/permanent side. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Bollner - as per nom. Tiggerjay (talk) 23:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I greatly dislike bundled BLP AFDs, specially as in this case we have three different individuals who share nothing but that they acted. That said...

Article #1: Redirect Michael Bollner to Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory, the film for which he received any sort of sourcable recognition. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article #2: Weak Keep Richard Genellefor his multiple notable projects. Yes... in all of them he played "Ernie"... but he is verifiable as having been 123 episodes total in two different Power Rangers series, and verifiable as having taken his character to two different Power Rangers films. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article #3: Delete Jung Ayul as being a "newbie actress" who did not really give herself a chance to build a career that would meet WP:ENT. Her press coverage is for her untimely demise and we are not a memorial. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. IronKnuckle (talk) 07:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC) confirmed sock puppeteer[reply]
- Which one... or all three? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - All of em. IronKnuckle (talk) 04:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well... Bollner had a role in one quite notable film. Even if failing WP:ENT and not being notable enough for a separate article, there is enough sourcability of that role to merit sending readers to the one place where it makes sense to have his name mentioned. And Genelle has enough in notable productions to meet WP:ENT. Thank you for responding. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:57, 19 February 2013 (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.