Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Alhaje

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. Sandstein 19:11, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Alhaje[edit]

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

Minor actor, playing minor parts in obscure TV series. The subject's agent has reportedly been aggressively trying to get this in here (see our Requests for Undeletion page), and the language reeks of promotion and press-agentry. Orange Mike | Talk 03:19, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my original prod: "Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Isn't covered significantly at all. Only one major TV role, and only mentioned incidentally in news coverage relating to that TV series." The article is merely a promo piece about an actor of currently limited notability that was REFUNDed by an SPA. Kb.au (talk) 03:32, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 03:32, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 03:32, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hey orange mike, thank you for all your contributions and work that you do on Wikipedia. In the issue regarding the deletion of the page Sam Alhaje, I will like to talk and address due to that fact that Sam Alhaje is a established actor and celebrity and is not part of small obscure television shows or roles. He is the main actor on 3 prime time television shows in Australia. Has been nominated for one of the countries biggest awards in the industry (Logie). And out of respect your comment about its “push from his agent” is non evident and an assumption. And in regards to “obscure” tv show, this is also not respectfully correct. The shows he’s been apart of and is the LEAD, have grabbed a national audience of over 1.4 million viewers in just one night. And in the concern regarding to the what "criterion" this person meets of the Australian Actor's page Sam Alhaje and with research and gathering, I honestly think he meets all the criterion. He was a Logie candidate for one of the awards in the TV industry in Australia Logie nomination (along with evidence below from his agent and all his radio interviews, red carpet speech and news paper articles which i believe is sufficient and strong information) and that is due to the fact that he has acquired and has been cast in 3 new television shows and tv series airing in 2018 in which he is the main character "KARIM" in one (concern for welfare which is airing on SBS in Australia, one of Australia's biggest tv networks.) A role on the ABC TV tv series "RAKE" as a supporting actor "DELL" to prestigious actor Richard Roxburgh and Damien Harvey. Another ABC TV brand new comedy as another supporting actor "JAL" in the upcoming show SANDO.( source is his very own agent catherine poulton and the production company Jungle entertainment".. link is http://www.cpmgt.com.au/talent/sam-alhaje/. And has also been on hold for a third session of the successful show that branched him out "here come the habibs". He has also received recognition with the sci fi feature film "hidden peaks" which has just been sold and began distribution in USA,ASIA & Australia with a release date in the first quarter of 2018. he also has just been cast in the new theatre play as the main character for the Parramatta riverside theatre play called "Lakemba". He has also just finalised a commercial where he worked with the fabulous Australian legend Roy Billing for the prestigious bank "Macquarie Bank Group". He has attained a following of over 11.9 thousand followers on instagram. He is a well established actor, public figure, and has attended almost every red carpet with a strong reputation for bringing the "fun" to the carpet. He has been nominated for Logies, and has been shortlisted for AACTA awards. He attends red carpets regularly (https://www.instagram.com/samalhaje/) He has a strong reputation throughout the community as he has worked with Cody Walker, Paul Walkers brother from fast and furious for is charity Reach Out World Wide Charity which was founded by Paul Walker. He is an ambassador for "White ribbon" which aims to stop violence against women. He has also been acknowledged by the Parliament for his support of the Australian Gynaecological Cancer Foundation, the Leukaemia Foundation's World's greatest Shave, the Mark Hughes Foundation for Brain Cancer Research in where he was on the highly rated "today show" on TV going around to the schools and doing live crosses. and the Reach Out World Wide Charity founded by Paul Walker. This is guy is a well established actor in Australia and is relevant in the tv/film and theatre industry. I believe with all this he meets:

Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.
Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

He’s a established actor and celebrity. He has 3 tv shows premiering in 2018. Halobot224 (talk) 10:21, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While Alhaje has a significant role in "Here Come the Habibs", his other roles don't appear to get over the line of "significance" per NACTOR's criteria (I agree with Kb.au's assessment that GNG isn't met either). "Rake" is indeed a notable series, but the role he's played seems not to be listed on the ABC's own website for the show or even on IMDB (which customarily lists everyone whose name can be verified, regardless of role). His other recurring roles may eventually lead to fame, but they haven't yet. Instagram followers in and of themselves don't amount to a claim to notability, and neither does "attending red carpets" in an industry where most people would happily attend the opening of the proverbial envelope (a "reputation for bringing the fun to the carpet" may count for something if there's the relevant level of coverage for that, but I'm not seeing it). Even his appearance on the Today Show here in Australia means less than you might think, given that the commercial networks use those breakfast programs as an opportunity for cross-promotion. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:26, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ duplicate struck Hey big haz,

I feel that you have not addressed the whole information provided above. The guy has been nominated for a Logie. One of the biggest recognitions in the tv industry. And has not only appeared on the today show. He has appeared on 20 to one on channel 9 as well with the information mentioned above. He is one of the main characters on the sbs show “concern for welfare”. The guy does major TV networks gigs. And with regards to rake, he is apart of the cast for this years session to appear onto the 2018 show so he wouldn’t been listed as yet because it hasn’t passed. He has more credibility with credits then some of his co stars on the show and others in the industry and they still have no request to delete for their Wikipedia pages. And he has worked with massive Aussie legends and stars that I mentioned above. He has also appeared as the main celebrity to go around Sydney for the biggest newspaper article publishers in Australia “the daily telegraph” and go on a “food safari” and choose Sydney’s best. They don’t hire a no body for that. Sam Alhaje was in one of the highest rating shows of Aussie tv as the MAIN on a commercial network. I honestly do not see how he does not fit the criterion. And I would ask that doesn’t a social following prove the criterion of number 2. Which is Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. He fits all criteria. Halobot224 (talk) 10:50, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that I hadn't addressed every single point you raised (some of that may have been because of the size of the paragraph), but I'm happy to do so. A Logie nomination doesn't necessarily translate to notability, funnily enough. As far as NACTOR is concerned, it can point to the significance of the role the subject was nominated for - as indicated, I'm entirely willing to say that a main-cast role in "Habibs" qualifies - but that first criterion requires "multiple notable films, television shows...". Last I followed the matter, too, the Logies were voted by the audience, rather than any body of experts such as the Oscars are, which may count against their notability qua awards, but that's another story. As far as the various light-entertainment things he's been on for Ch9, my point above still stands. Turning up to do cross-promotion as a talking head on "20 to 1" (or "Today", or any other such appearance) doesn't count for much. It certainly doesn't amount to a "significant role", I'm sure you'd agree.

Regarding his "Rake" appearances for this year, I'm afraid that comes under the "too soon" heading I referred to earlier. Unless and until those appearances are made, there's simply no way of saying "they're significant", so we have to go on what we have at the moment. You've mentioned his "credibility" versus other cast members on that series, which really doesn't enter into it. You're entirely within your rights to nominate any actor you feel isn't as notable as Alhaje for deletion, and consensus will determine that outcome. Just because those articles currently exist doesn't mean that Alhaje gets one automatically.

With regards to the "food safari" you mention, I think we're going to have to disagree here. The Daily Telegraph is connected to Ch9 as well, for starters, so it's entirely possible that this would simply be more of the "Today"-style cross-promotion. I'll also point out that - at least here in Brisbane, where our newspapers may have different standards to the Tele - my younger brother has been asked to do a range of food-related commentaries for the papers at times, as he has previously worked for a food blog of minor notoriety. A person less notable than my younger brother, however, you'd be hard-pressed to find, particularly if I weren't in the room...

Social media following goes partway towards criterion 2, yes. I can point to plenty of people with large social media followings who aren't notable by Wikipedia's standards, though. Besides which, is there any coverage of this rabid fan base, or is it just the Instagram statistic by itself? Considering the prevalence of bot accounts and so on, those sorts of numbers should always be taken with a grain of salt.

Lastly, let's not kid ourselves that he meets "all criteria". The third one requires "unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment", which I'm sure we can both agree he's simply not been around long enough to have done. In years to come, sure, he may well do, although I suspect he will have got himself an article for one of the other criteria first. All of this goes back to the point I made earlier - he's clearly got a lot going on career-wise and seems poised for big things, to which I say good on him. To say that that means he gets a Wikipedia article right now, though, is to get it precisely backwards. He makes it big, then he gets the article, rather than the other way around. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:29, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback on this matter, but i'm going to have to politely disagree with some points that you raised as they're are incorrect or don't have any evidence connected to it. The first and foremost that "channel 9" is connected to daily telegraph is not true. They're two separate entity's and have no connection and are independent from each other. Foxtel on the other hand may be connected to daily telegraph as its listed on "Subsidiaries" see the link for this all https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_Corp_Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Telegraph_(Sydney). And as for the Logie, it's not purely based on a role that he had did, it's based on his overall stance in the industry as he got nominated for "best new talent", which is not only the audiences decision, its the industry professionals themselves who gets it and who even is allowed to be accepted to be nominated for it. And i will ask, in regards to the fan base issue, isn't this the problem with the internet all round? every social media or every online presence can have bots etc, then how does one prove this then? if an audience on a prime time network show that achieves a national audience of 1 million and around that number week after week for over 2 years, doesn't that show solid evidence? That is solidly and legally tracked week after week. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_Come_the_Habibs#RatingsAnd if you add in his roles which is another international film and TV show he is notable on http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2924488/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_1and TV show which was aired on the discovery channel http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1971762/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_6. However i will say and definitely agree with you regarding the "too soon" with his upcoming tv shows, but then i'd say is it worth throwing away this page article on alhaje because of impatience? These should be aired not long from now. And i know it sounds like i'm "defending", but this guy is active on TV with not only one role, but a credit list that goes over 10. I just dont think we should throw it away right now. P.s. you're brother sounds like he's got the best job in the world! haha Halobot224 (talk) 03:19, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While you're correct that Ch9 and the Tele aren't connected to each other, I still fail to see why being asked to talk about his favourite places to eat makes him notable. Before you raise the obvious response that "it shows that he's famous", we need to remember that "famous" and "notable" don't always mean the same thing.

To your point about the Logie, while I appreciate that it's not specifically an award for "Habibs" so much as an overall "best newcomer" kind of thing, the fact remains that he was nominated (didn't win), based almost entirely on his role in one particular show (yes, a major role in what I'm reliably informed is a relatively major show). That doesn't translate to a pass on the first criterion of NACTOR, which requires significant "roles" (plural) in "multiple notable...television shows" (plural). I don't dispute that he's been in multiple notable shows, but it's a question of the significance of his other appearances, which is not very high at best. I do also share Dorsetonian's concern about the veracity of this Logie nomination, although the wording of that link is sufficiently vague as to admit of both interpretations.

You raise a valid point about how one measures a fan base, and I'll admit I don't have a specific answer for you (I don't tend to contribute to AfDs on actors and the like, so someone else may have more of an answer. That said, I don't at all subscribe to the view that an audience of X viewers for show Y means that they're all fans of every single actor on the show. I may be more selective in my TV viewing than the average, but there are definitely series I've watched despite not being able to stand one of the cast or guests or whoever. If the question were about the notability of "Habibs", I'd agree that that's a sensible way to measure the fan support, but remember that I don't normally deal in this area.

Lastly, to your comment about not "throwing the article away" right now because he might be about to become notable. The entire point, though, is that Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball, as mentioned earlier. Until someone or something is notable, they aren't. Just as Wikipedia shouldn't have articles on (to take an invented example) the band who rehearses in the garage across the street from me, even if they're so close to getting a record deal as makes no difference, neither should Wikipedia have an article on an actor who's about to hit the big time until he does actually hit it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete despite the bumptious defence of the article above, notability is measured in terms of coverage in reliable sources and not only is it virtually non-existent, what little there is is also only for one thing. I can find no evidence to support the the claims of notability - the forthcoming roles don't appear to have coverage and I can find no evidence he has ever been nominated for a Logie (indeed, the link given to support that claim appears to be to a page lobbying for his nomination). At the very best this is WP:TOOSOON. Dorsetonian (talk) 11:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey sorry if you think i'm "bumptious defending" the article. I'm not. There are a ton of reliable sources that are both online and print for this actor Sam Alhaje to show notability. I just don't want to throw away a page of a notable celebrity. The evidence that he has been nominated is linked here that comes from the official page channel 9 page and habibs page. https://www.facebook.com/HereComeTheHabibs/posts/1173545099395378:0 Halobot224 (talk) 03:19, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a "Here Come The Habibs" facebook post from December 2016 that says "Toufic's got big ambitions and a Logie for Best New Talent is next on his list! VOTE for Sam Alhaje in the #TVWeekLogies" but the Best New Talent nominees announced in March 2017 [1] did not include him - which is why it appears to be simply lobbying for his nomination. It certainly does not appear to be evidence of a nomination. Dorsetonian (talk) 07:54, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Alhaje did NOT get nominated for a Logie. He may have been in the running but was not one five who got nominated. Nothing satisfying NACTOR or GNG. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:28, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NACTOR. The coverage found consists of only trivial mentions rather than significant coverage. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 03:55, 6 February 2018 (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.