Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Sutton

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. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 21:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Sutton[edit]

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

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

Sutton does not appear to meet the multiple significant roles in notable productions. I do not think he had multiple roles that would be counted as significant. Beyond this, IMDb is not a reliable source. I searched for other sources but found nothing. His run for political office lead to loss at the box office, so even if we could find newspaper coverage of it it would not add up to notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:28, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article dates back to Noveember 2015, a time when you did not even have to be a registered user to create an article. It was not created by a registered user. These facts have no bearing on the article per se, but do show the negative results of our Wild West type building policies in the first few years of Wikipedia. That is also how we got an article on Barahir.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:32, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:38, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:39, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:39, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - There's no reliable source coverage of his career that I can find either. For somebody who was apparently both a actor and politician, getting roles in major films, he seems to have little to no notability. I agree. Deletion is the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:41, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- There is coverage of his work in Variety and elsewhere. He was more known for radio. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 01:51, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- CoffeeWithMarkets, would you please look at my contributions to the article and let me know whether that affects your view of the subject? Thank you. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 02:15, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He has over 700 radio credits on the Radio Gold Index. Will someone please add him to radio deletion sorting lists? DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:39, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passes WP:ENT #1 and WP:GNG. Star of a radio show. Supporting player in many movies, including two Hopalong Cassidy entries. Marriage notice in Billboard; obituary in Variety. I found some coverage when I searched his name and some of the titles in Google Books and more when I looked in databases. There is more I can add if deletion proponents insist, but I think this is enough to establish notability. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 02:19, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the excellent work by DiamondRemley39. Once again, looking like another poor nom from Lambert who should really look at WP:NEXIST, which is part of the overall WP:N page. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:23, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lugnuts, John Pack Lambert willingly ignores WP:EXIST (and consensus for that matter).Oakshade (talk) 21:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC)\[reply]

No one here has presented any good reason that on finding an article that existed with 1 non-reliable source for over a decade and then trying to make a good faith search to find more sources and finding nothing someone should give up and differ to this case of a total lack of adequate sourcing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:08, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had to read your sentence four times; I think I finally understand it now. I'm sure others have explained to you before, but I'm in a didactic mood, so I'll bite. As the nominator, it's your job to a good, thorough BEFORE, and follow the instructions. There is a certain amount of due diligence and work ethic that BEFOREs call for.

Your nominations of the past week indicate that you don't have a historian's eyes. That's ok; most people don't know how to find an answer when it isn't in the first page of Google results or where to go to do specialized research. But it's not ok to ignore really big clues... the article said this guy was the star of a show, which is a huge point in favor of notability. Budding researchers would know to then seek out more info on the show, maybe in conjunction with the guy's name... it's obvious you did not. You nominated rather than asked for help or even mentioned the possibility of notability in the nomination.
It would help people believe you performed decent BEFOREs if you added citations to articles before nominating rather than request other people do that work while they're proving that the nomination isn't great. Your current track record suggests you should stick to editing non-historical topics, and maybe something easier for others with more understanding of the topics to fix, like tagging, over deleting. You also tend not to address or thank the people who make positive changes to the articles you have nominated. What do you have to say about the work done on this article, User:Johnpacklambert?

I hope this helps you understand why so many people are still concerned about your nominations. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I find some of Lambert's work and comments most odd. Actors with a lenghty filmography are not notable, but "Governement ministers, and in fact all national legislature members, are default notable". Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I hadn't occurred to me that he might not be known in terms of film and politics but be a major radio presence. His career in that medium appears to be documented enough that the page ought to be kept. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 14:51, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Another poor nomination by John Pack Lambert. Notability easily demonstrated by DiamondRemley39. Oakshade (talk) 21:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As per WP:HEY. I would also encourage John Pack Lambert to complete more thorough WP:BEFOREs before nominating articles. Dflaw4 (talk) 23:36, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article had had a "needs additional citations" notice on it for 11 months when I nominated it for deletion. So the comment about needing to put on requests for better sourcing makes no sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:26, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I never said that was the case with this article and I don't think anyone else did either. I'm beginning to wonder how well you understand notability, deletion, and related topics. Also: It would read better if you'd put your response to the comment directly after the comment. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 16:36, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DiamondRemley39. Daask (talk) 23:00, 30 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.