Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Wilson (New Zealand actor)

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. Despite the arguments to Keep this article, there is no SIGCOV that is evident, in the article or in this discussion, this article is just another display of an IMDB page and so doesn't meet requirements for articles to be encyclopedic. Liz Read! Talk! 05:31, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Overturned to no consensus after DRV discussion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:59, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Wilson (New Zealand actor)[edit]

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

Patrick Wilson (New Zealand actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Difficult to complete a BEFORE search because of the mix of sources with ones about Patrick Wilson (American actor) but so far as I can tell there isn't SIGCOV for this guy. Clearly other editors have also noticed this given the tags on the page. May just barely meet WP:NACTOR #1 though I'm not too familiar with the work he's done and couldn't guarantee any of it meets the requirements. If deleted, would also recommend moving Patrick Wilson (American actor) to Patrick Wilson (actor) (which already redirects there anyway). QuietHere (talk) 12:53, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

updated rude awakenings. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:25, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Still not fully convinced, especially since you haven't provided links for any of your sources and I can't verify anything. Doesn't quite guarantee Rude Awakenings notability. And that Otago Daily Times article (thank you Dflaw4 for linking it below) is an interview which I believe would be considered primary (see WP:INTERVIEW). Still feels like a stretch to me. QuietHere (talk) 17:36, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Remember there is no requirement that sources need to be online. matt91486 (talk) 18:41, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of that, but it helps when I can see the sources to confirm their reliability. QuietHere (talk) 22:42, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The subject's multiple recurring roles in TV series are just enough to get by for WP:NACTOR, and the reference cited above (which can be read here) is certainly a good write-up. Dflaw4 (talk) 14:26, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per ′the above discussion and the roles meeting NACTOR. matt91486 (talk) 18:41, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to having various significant roles in shows and movies that are notable enough for their own Articles. Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 15:10, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. While there is a consensus that this actor has had roles in multiple TV shows and movies, that doesn't necessarily translate into SIGCOV. I'm relisting this discussion for another week to leave room for more feedback and possibly improvements to the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:50, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep passes WP:NACTOR, per his several significant roles in notable films. Moresdi (talk) 13:55, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: Policy and guideline reasons that support DELETION or Merge (ATD) over NACTOR, IAR or ILIKEIT: This has been relisted and currently seems to show a majority "consensus to keep". All articles and lists are subject to our policies and guidelines on sourcing (that is the verifiability policy) that involves reliable sources: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. The state of the article in not a determination on notability but there is a criteria of BURDEN (policy) when challenged. According to the challenge(s), current state of the article, and comments, a keep in this state and the article will likely become a perennial subject. This is a BLP (noted on the talk page), yet is really totally unsourced just using unreliable sources in an "External links" (IMDb and TVNZ profile), which Wikipedia-wide consensus has long shown not to be acceptable. What we end up with is actually a list-class filmography that is unsourced. Please note: the criteria of WP:NACTOR falls under the guideline of Wikipedia:Notability (people) that is quite clear in the lead, the WP:BASIC, and "Additional criteria" sections (that includes WP:ANYBIO and WP:NACTOR), on sourcing in an article. This is covered in the not to often mentioned WP:BIOSPECIAL when a subject "meets one or more of the additional criteria" but "lacks appropriate sources". The above information will show the article does not pass the criteria for a stand alone article. Consensus is not a "vote" but Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Arguing that WP:NACTOR is sufficient is taking one part of a whole and arguing that the whole is fulfilled. The article has been tagged since October 2011 for notability and since 2019 as needing more sourcing, or eleven years with no improvement. When Wikipedia was new all was fair to keep growing. At a point reliability became more important and sourcing through "External links" not acceptable, yet we are attempting to show here that sourcing is not really important and by proxy that policies not so important either, --or-- maybe there is more to our inclusion criteria than NACTOR alone. -- Otr500 (talk) 15:25, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Seconding all of this. QuietHere (talk) 00:33, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    To expand on my support of this argument, I'd like to specifically note that as it stands this article is essentially just a list of film and television roles. Whether they are notable or not, the fact that the article lacks any significant biographical information (and that none has been found from reliable sources) means the "article" is essentially a directory. We have WP:NOTDIRECTORY for a reason and this is an obvious failure of that policy. If users want information on this man's acting roles, IMDb and TVNZ already provide that, but if they aren't gonna find anything other than that here then it's not a proper Wikipedia article. QuietHere (talk) 00:44, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Based on the arguments above. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 03:58, 24 October 2022 (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/Patrick_Wilson_(New_Zealand_actor)&oldid=1126414270"