Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Boulton (actor)

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. WP:ENT requires multiple significant roles, a criterion which does not appear to be met here. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:09, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Boulton (actor)[edit]

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

British actor. This is a whole fan site disguised as an article, written in revoltingly sycophantic prose that goes to extreme lengths to highlight every detail of "Nicholas"'s career as a milestone in popular culture. Now, it is quite possible that this actor is notable, but I could not bring myself to read all of the 500(!) footnotes, almost all of which merely document an appearance in some work or other; and a Google News search does not immediately highlight the person as notable - just a lot of mentions of appearances in plays. In any case, if he is in fact notable, this needs WP:TNT and starting over by somebody who knows how to write a neutral encyclopedia article. Sandstein 10:43, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning, Although I happen to be a "fan" of the actor (which i don't see why that should be a problem since most people who edit actors pages on Wikipedia are fans of the artists they work on), I am really perplexed by the "rude" tone you use to describe my work, especially as I have identified all infos I could find on the actor with reliable and certifiable sources. Would you please highlight me "very kindly and politely" as to how you think my prose is sycophantic, remark I find very offensive. And two, would you mind explain to me how somebody who should be on Wikipedia has to pass the Google News Search highlight to be notable. The man I follow is a well esteemed and respected actor who worked on several programs in the UK and being esteemed by his peers and professional critics, and game players. Reviews have been given about his work and he has had interviews also. Please inform to me as to how I can improve this page which I passed through the creation process and which all who watched it found acceptable and even approved it. Thank you for taking the time in reading my message. Waiting for your reply. Simon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon Omnes (talk • contribs) 13:17, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:01, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:01, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Omnes, to begin with, articles are to be written from a neutral point of view and cover what reliable sources have written about a subject. What you wrote is a fan site. Just looking at the first paragraph, you write: " Apart from that first job opportunity, Nicholas's three years studies gave him acting skills, an agent, and the chance, as he says, "to safely explore the different directions one could take in what is a hazardous choice of career."" That is the sort of vapid blather found in press releases, not an encyclopedia entry, starting with referring to the subject by his first name, which suggests an undue sense of familiarity. If you cannot recognize the problem here even after reading examples of good actor biographies, you should not be writing for Wikipedia. What's more, there's so much crap in here, it's not clear whether your subject is even notable per WP:GNG. Sandstein 18:15, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While the article does require much clean up, the fan bias included is not as prevalent as Sandstein is making it out to be. On the contrary to what @Sandstein has suggested, I do not believe that the article requires WP:TNT. I wouldn't consider the article to be a "fansite", though some opinionated adjectives could be removed. In any sense, subject is clearly notable per media coverage and should be kept on Wikipedia. In the future, I suggest that rude words such as "crap" be discluded from deletion reviews, as well as demeaning comments regarding how a user is not skilled enough to be included in editing. On the contrary, more experienced users should assist new ones in becoming more skilled editors rather than brutally criticizing their work. Remember: uplifting critique is better than criticism that tears down. MonroeHarless (talk) 20:45, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you MonroeHarless for your supporting words. As a new member of the Wikipedia editing community, I find positive comments much better than rude words and patronising attitudes. As to whether or not I might want to work on Future Wikipedia pages, that might be something else I'd want to reconsider considering Mr.Sandstein's unpleasantness. But still, for the sake of this page I have been work on for 4 months on my free time, I would like to patch it up as much as I can. Would you be kind, Mr. MonroeHarless or any editor on Wikipedia who might look at this discussion, tell me which part of the Wikipedia page could be improved (adjectives to be removed, phrases to be reformulated), even give me some of your suggestions. If you also want to add your corrections to the page, I would find the gesture very kind. After all, I've always felt Wikipedia exists so that we can create a "cooperative" and "respectful" Encyclopedia. --Simon Omnes (talk)22:51, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You said, "In any sense, subject is clearly notable per media coverage" but I disagree wholeheartedly. I do not believe the subject is notable as he has not received significant coverage in independent sources. If you believe he has, I would ask that you share such sources as offer significant coverage of him. Simply having performing in an audiobook, or 10, does not make one notable. --Odie5533 (talk) 12:32, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ - Yes, it is a bit difficult to find actual information to show notability, but I think there have been sufficiently many significant roles for him to meet WP:ENT. I think it would be a good idea to cut it down to a stub or at least a much shorter version and starting again; essentially WP:TNT but without a complete deletion in between. @Simon Omnes: - unfortunately it is not a matter of removing some adjectives and phrases - the entire text is promotional and that requires a complete rewrite, removing large bits of the text as well as many of the footnotes. I have started doing so now. Writing a new article is the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia, and it is not exactly rude to suggest that a user does not yet have the experience required to do it well. Please note that Wikipedia is usually not interested in what a person says about themselves, and there is no reason to include more than maybe a very few very brief bits of information about what Boulton himself thinks about his work. The only relevant thing is what other people who are not connected to him have said - positive and negative. --bonadea contributions talk 10:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing my own !vote to delete. Having worked with the article, cutting away information that is not relevant to this article as well as info putting an undue focus on Boulton's own opinions about the various roles he has had and the people he's worked with, I am forced to change my mind about his notability. WP:ENT specifies that the person has had multiple notable roles, but multiple minor roles some of which are in notable productions are not the same thing - for example, an appearance in one episode of the undeniably notable series Game of Thrones does not confer notability on the actor, since notability is not inherited. --bonadea contributions talk 19:59, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. I looked through all the sources and none offer significant coverage of him. The best was one article that had 1-2 sentences about him when discussing one of the plays he did. Most of the sources are just citations that he did this or that audiobook, and the rest of the article is based on interviews he's done for YouTube gaming series, or one put out by the company he was working for at the time. Delete as not notable. --Odie5533 (talk) 12:29, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening, I have added a new version of the tables (Theatre, Film, Video games) etc. and have kept in them what I consider important info regarding Nicholas. Please give me your advice as to what should be kept or deleted. As for my reasons as to why we should keep Nicholas Boulton's entry (though it seems I am in the minority in those discussions), here they are: 1) The artist has been praised for his work in the audiobook industry (Audiofile Magazine articles, reviews, and awards), YouTube channels and Game Websites have done interviews for his work (audiobooks and video games), and reviews have been written about his performances in theatre. 2) The man has been in talking roles for major productions like Shakespeare in Love and Tospy-Turvy, which are quite noted for their media presence in the English-American cinema. He has also been in important video games (Dragon Age) and TV shows (Life Begins, Jonathan Strange, HeartBeat, etc.). He is not an obscure actor. 3) Several video game booklets, even books on plays mention his name as an important cast member for various original productions(Dragon Age, XenoBlade Chronicles, Last Story, etc.) Does Wikipedia still consider book references as pertinent and valuable information for an artist's career recognition and notable importance? 4) The man is an important presence in the radio entertainment industry in the UK as he has done hundreds of BBC radio plays. And as for the references I've used for those radio plays, they are program schedules in the Radio Times (publication in the UK) that show which day the productions appeared and which roles he did. Shouldn't that be a valuable information? 5) Although he is not a presence in the popular press like the most popular actors, Nicholas has nevertheless a rich and important background in the UK Theatre, film, and television. Shouldn't his presence in those projects, along with his work pedigree, be a great asset for Wikipedia's art/theatre/television sections. Shouldn't Wikipedia be a page about culture and the artists that work in the entertainment industry? There are several artists that are not necessarily notable in terms of stardom culture and media presence, but who have developed themselves and their name through their career and awards instead of the usual press. What about those that do have some articles recognition and awards for their work like Nicholas? Shouldn't we be offering those artists a chance of presence on Wikipedia? Thank you for reading my post and new suggestions. Waiting for the rest of your posts and suggestions, corrections. Sincerely, --Simon Omnes (talk)01:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Shouldn't we be offering those artists a chance of presence on Wikipedia?" -- Simply, no. Wikipedia is not meant as a platform to boost the careers of less recognized actors. As you have argued, despite the fact he's held many jobs over the years, he's maintained a rather low profile and been flying under the radar. That is precisely why he is not eligible for an article. None of the sources offer significant coverage of him. Until people start writing about him, more than 1-2 sentences in a long article that focuses primarily on a different actor, I do not believe he is notable enough for an article. --Odie5533 (talk) 13:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "There are several artists that are not necessarily notable in terms of stardom culture and media presence, but who have developed themselves and their name through their career and awards instead of the usual press." - yes, and those artists can then potentially be notable per these criteria, but it is not automatically the case. Awards sometimes grant notability (according to Wikipedia's peculiar definition of the word "notability") but only if the awards themselves are notable, and generally not for nominations.

Reviews are useful to show notability, but again it depends on who wrote the review and where it was published. Negative reviews are of course just as relevant as positive ones in terms of showing notability.

Book references are just as valid as online references, see this information; game booklets and programmes produced for plays would probably not be reliable sources, however. --bonadea contributions talk 13:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the issue presented in the nomination seems to be notability, so we turn to WP:ENT, which details that actors have had significant roles in multiple notable films, plays, etc. Many of the roles Boulton has played have been significant, especially in plays with only a few characters, and seeing as those many of those plays do turn out to be notable and not some college or small-town production, I'd say he meets the notability guideline in WP:ENT. Icebob99 (talk) 23:58, 23 December 2016 (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.