Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Sowers

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 speedy keep per the good work that Dr. Blofeld did to the article - adding reliable sources and getting it up to layout standards. (Non-administrator closure.) LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:24, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Sowers[edit]

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

Completely unsourced and has no significant coverage, fails WP:GNG LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:15, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Very disappointing nomination from a fellow WP:Actors member. Whatever happened to the decency of asking a fellow editor to expand something (which is notable BTW)?♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's nothing personal Blo, I actually was shocked when I made the initial deletion request to see that you were the primary contributor, leaving a page completely unsourced didn't seem like something you would do. LADY LOTUS • TALK 16:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was created six years ago when sourcing wasn't a big thing back then for new stubs. You've made things even worse now by wrongly adding "not in source" tags to the article now. In google books Tag 1: Source 2, Tag 2: top source, Tag 3: top source. Please remove them and withdraw this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:24, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because his name isn't in the sources given on his article so how is his role in what you were trying to reference verified? LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is. First one: Scott Sowers (Guard #2) etc. I'm not sure what you're looking at but the name is there, it might not being showing up in the snippets though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Lady, given the recent additions in sourcing, I think we can all agree that this AfD can now be closed, as the article has enough in the way of sources to justify it's existence? - SchroCat (talk) 17:06, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I still am not convinced of his notability. Significant coverage is more than just mere mentions of him or just his name in an article. So yes while Blo has added quite a few sources, are any of them about him solely and not just a passing mention of him? He seems like an extra, has a lot of appearances that aren't memorable, is that worthy of his own article? LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jobbing actors can still be notable in their own right, I think (we even have one at FA, which goes to show you). Given the number and breadth of sources In this case I'm happy to see the article survive. - SchroCat (talk) 20:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lady, 80% of actors are the same, shall we delete Enzo Petito and Martin Miller (actor, born 1899) too because they mostly only had minor roles in films? Show me one source with documents either one in detail. They become notable for the number of notable films they had minor appearances and if applies their stage work and for how many different sources they're mentioned in, even if brief. In this guy's case, he's actually a notable stage actor (who founded his own theatre company and won the LA Dramalogue Award for Performance) and had a major role in a notable US series.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:32, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but we aren't talking about them (WP:OTHERSTUFF), we're talking about him. "Major role in a notable US series", which one? LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Get Hit and a minor recurring role in Law and Order, not to mention roles in numerous Academy Award winning films. Anyway it wouldn't matter whether he'd never appeared on TV or film, he'd be notable for his stage work in his own right anyway.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There were only 1 season of 6 episodes 7 minutes a piece. How major could that role have been? Grasping at straws. LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:15, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to grasp at straws as this doesn't stand a snowball in hell's chance of being deleted!.. Cracker: Mind Over Murder was a major ongoing role. His stage work if nothing else is notable, his role in productions like Streetcar Named Desire playing Stanley. His name is alongside the likes of John C. Reilly and Natasha Richardson here and he has more than a minor role in it which is discussed in numerous sources. He once played Stanley in a stage production and later John C. Reilly played the same role and he played Steve instead. He clearly meets guidelines. Sources like [1] wouldn't say what they do about him being an accomplished actor if he wasn't notable and as a major US publisher wouldn't publish his work if he wasn't good enough..♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Lots of sourcing, but in need of formatting and general wikification. At this point, should be kept under WP:SNOW. --McDoob AU93 19:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per sources found, SNOWKEEP should probably follow. –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:24, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems to have sufficient sources to meet notability standards. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:25, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep – It's a shame that the nominator didn't do her homework before adding this to AfD. Cassianto ^talk 08:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My homework? I like that this is all getting personal instead of just adding whether this should be kept or not. Nice. LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]