Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Percy Hynes White

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. The strongest, policy based arguments are for deletion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Percy Hynes White[edit]

Percy Hynes White (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a teen actor, not based on enough reliable source coverage about him to clear notability requirements for actors. The referencing here consists of one news article which is primarily about a film he was in, supporting the notability of the film more than his standalone notability as a performer, and one Q&A interview with him on the website of the film festival that same film premiered at (which is not a reliable or notability-assisting source at all.) As always, actors are not granted an automatic inclusion freebie just because they exist -- but the sourcing, and the substance of what there is to say about him besides "he exists as an actor", just aren't where they need to be to deem him as passing WP:NACTOR yet. And furthermore, due to the potential of a Wikipedia article to cause harm (e.g. vandalism or attack editing), we have a standing practice of being especially careful about the notability of minors. No prejudice against recreation in the future if and when he's more sourceable as passing NACTOR for more than just one role, but right now it's WP:TOOSOON. Bearcat (talk) 23:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No criterion in WP:NACTOR can be passed just by asserting that he satisfies an NACTOR criterion — an actor gets past NACTOR by having a reasonable degree of reliable source coverage about him to support an article with, not by just claiming to meet an NACTOR criterion. For being in Murdoch Mysteries to count toward notability, you have to show media coverage about his performance in Murdoch Mysteries; for being in Between to count toward notability, you have to show media coverage about his performance in Between; for being in The Gifted to count toward notability, you have to show media coverage about his performance in The Gifted; and on and so forth. And an article about the series which merely mentions his name in a comprehensive cast list (like what you've added for The Gifted) is not enough to demonstrate notability — he has to be substantively a subject of the source, not just have his existence namechecked in it, before the source counts for anything. Again: an actor is not automatically notable under NACTOR just he's had roles — he becomes notable only when media have singled him and his performances in those roles out for special dedicated attention.
And NACTOR requires more than just one role — so if you're going for "notable because he's been in stuff", rather than "notable because he won or got nominated for a Canadian Screen Award for it", then one article about Cast No Shadow is not enough coverage to carry an NACTOR pass all by itself either.
Bottom line, he needs to be the subject of more media coverage about him than this before he gets a Wikipedia article for any of it. And by the way, please read and familiarize yourself with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as well — the fact that Flynn Morrison doesn't have a stronger notability claim or better sourcing than this doesn't mean this needs to be kept, but that Flynn Morrison also needs to be deleted. Bearcat (talk) 17:27, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I added one more source to the film Edge of Winter. Frank Scheck stated his play as "excellent" (another leading role, I forgot to mention). -- MovieFex (talk) 20:04, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: WP:NEXIST -- MovieFex (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Awards added -> Wikipedia:IDEALSTUB. -- MovieFex (talk) 16:19, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To count as a notability claim for an actor, an award has to be on the order of the Canadian Screen Awards, the Oscars, the Emmys or the BAFTAs — the primary national television or film awards — not "rising star" or "best actor" at a individual local film festival outside of the top tier of international prominence. At Cannes or Berlin or TIFF, sure, those would count. At Edmonton or Halifax or Sudbury or Frameline, no. Especially not if your reference for the award win is the award's own self-published website about itself, as the source you provided for Edmonton is — in order to be a notability-conferring award, it has to be an award that gets consistent and regular, and more than just local, coverage as news, like the Oscars or the Emmys or the CSAs and not like any film festival below the Cannes-Berlin-TIFF tier. Bearcat (talk) 13:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, notability is a question of whether the necessary depth of sourcing exists, and not whether it's all already in the article or not. That's precisely why I nominated this for deletion: the necessary depth of sourcing doesn't exist, which I know because I ran sourcing checks. Bearcat (talk) 13:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The actor has had significant roles in two major television series, and is set to be a starring cast member in a third (The Gifted) later this year. There's just about enough reliable sources at the moment, although I agree that a few more would be ehlpgfful,. That said, it passes Nactor at the present time so should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cindlevet (talk • contribs) 12:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's nowhere near enough reliable sources at the moment — there's only one source present that's even marginally acceptable, and three that count for absolutely squat. And the does not pass NACTOR at the present time, either — again, passing NACTOR is not a question of the claim being made, but of the sources being presented to support the claim, and the sources here are not adequate. Bearcat (talk) 13:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion you misinterpret NACTOR as you wish and mix it up with other criteria for relevance. The presence in some films might not be enough, but when NACTOR is fullfilled (... significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows ... etc) a clear notability is given. You forget the films as reliable sources and there is no explaination, why the film e.g. Cast No Shadow is notable but the actor who played the title role is not. Only one example. And what do you think, who is one of the actors shown on this cover of the upcoming TV series The Gifted? And THIS I call sabotage. You easily could have moved the reference to the right place. I don't know where you see your tasks here but as a sysop you have to help and support and not to misuse your extended rights in personal interest. -- MovieFex (talk) 21:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, no, the existence of the films does not count as metasourcing for their own notability — notability on Wikipedia is contingent on reliable source coverage about the topic in media, not simply on its existence technically metaverifying itself. And secondly, no, I'm not "intrpreting NACTOR as I wish and mixing it up with other criteria for relevance", either — Wikipedia is constantly inundated, in fact, with articles about actors whose creator erroneously interpreted the criterion as "any two roles, even non-speaking walk-on extra parts, in any two productions means an article has to exist whether it can be properly sourced or not". But they're wrong: the degree to which the article can be referenced to reliable source coverage about the actor is how we determine whether a role was "major" enough to count as a notability claim or not. And being pictured on the show's or film's self-published promotional poster is not a reliable source, either — a reliable source is a media outlet independent of the film producing its own content about the film, not any content produced by the production company's own marketing department. And finally, no, my role as an administrator on Wikipedia is not to simply help everybody do anything they want to — people regularly want to break Wikipedia's rules in any number of ways, and part of my role as an administrator is to tell those people why they can't. My job isn't to be a facilitator or a customer service representative — my responsibility is to Wikipedia, and sometimes includes removing or deleting content that doesn't comply with our rules or even blocking people's edit privileges entirely. If you want the article kept and want to add sourcing to improve its prospects, then it's your job to put the source where it belongs. Bearcat (talk) 21:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
During this discussion your part has more than 8000 bytes to get your will through. Instead you could have added one or two sentences to the article but no effort to help, only delete - delete - delete. Your argumentation is nonsense. We're not talking about "any two roles, even non-speaking walk-on extra parts, in any two productions". -- MovieFex (talk) 22:30, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that's what we were talking about here. But what we are talking about here is a person who has not been referenced to the degree of reliable source coverage needed to carry an NACTOR pass. The point of raising the person with only non-speaking extra walk-on roles was not to suggest that that's what Hynes-White is; it was to clarify the general reasons why we require reliable source coverage: anybody can simply claim absolutely anything about a person, so reliable sources are needed to show that the claim is true. The extent to which a role counts as "major" enough to satisfy NACTOR is defined by the extent to which that role has made him the subject of media coverage — a role does not count toward passing that criterion until you show that he has gotten reliable source coverage for that role. That's how notability works on here: it must always be supported by reliable source coverage about the person passing the criterion. Bearcat (talk) 23:12, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:50, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Case closed. tomburbine (talk) 03:03, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
An actor does not get a Wikipedia article just for the fact of having had roles — his eligibility for a Wikipedia article depends on his being the subject of reliable source media coverage about him and his performances in those roles. "Case closed" for an actor is "there are enough reliable sources present to support an article", not "there are roles listed in it". Bearcat (talk) 17:07, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
-- MovieFex (talk) 06:53, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"About": other Wikipedia articles are not sources. "Media coverage 1": counts for something, but not for enough all by itself as our notability standards require multiple reliable sources and not just one. Also, not new, but a source that was already discussed above. "Media coverage 2": just namechecks his existence a single time within an article which contains no substantive content about him, because it's about something else. You have a lot to learn about what constitutes valid sourcing and what doesn't, because you're not showing sources that count toward building notability. Bearcat (talk) 15:06, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Something about "About": It looks like, you have to learn a lot about WP:NEXIST. I gave a hint to an article, which has got more sources (I added a reference to this article, because of ... WP:NEXIST ... ?). Media coverage 3, everything in the article. --MovieFex (talk) 23:11, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merelyhaving his existence namechecked in a film review is also not a source that assists passage of GNG. He needs to be the subject of a source, not just have his name included in an article whose subject is something else, before that source contributes toward establishing notability. At any rate, I need no lessons in how Wikipedia works from you — I've been contributing here for about 15 years. Bearcat (talk) 17:24, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Several people have presented sources. On the other hand, all those sources have been refuted for what appear to be solid policy-based reasons. On the third hand, they've all been refuted by a single editor, who nominated this for deletion. I'd really like to see some broader community input before closing this.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 14:09, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as currently not sufficiently notable (role of "Boy" etc.). Anything notable could be placed in the article about his notable father until such time as he becomes sufficiently notable in his own right. Collect (talk) 16:12, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have added interviews that White has done. He has starred in two films, has had multiple recurring roles in a mumber of television shows, and is a star in the Gifted tomburbine (talk) 20:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews don't assist notability either, because they represent the subject talking about himself and are thus subject to the same issues as self-published sources: he won't, for instance, get fact-checked if he makes an inaccurate claim about himself. To count toward WP:GNG, a source about him has to be written in the third person by somebody other than himself — a source in which he's talking about himself does not aid in building a GNG claim. Bearcat (talk) 17:21, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now. Most likely a case of WP:TOOSOON, but his filmography currently doesn't pass WP:NACTOR, and searches did not turn up enough in-depth references from independent, reliable sources to show he passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 18:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)d[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/Percy_Hynes_White&oldid=1138219806"