Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Terada

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. Not enough evidence (as defined in WP:NOTE for his supposed notability has been shown. Comments by T-rex were particularly unhelpful. Fram (talk) 11:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Terada[edit]

Non-notable. Subject is a member of a non-notable karate team, was in a music video and has done some stunt work. Only reliable (I guess it is, anyway) source provided gives even less info: one stunt credit, one acting role (as "Boy on Bike"). Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment - How do we know he has his karate team is "non-notable" and in what way do we reliably know of his claimed lack of notability? --T-rex 16:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, stunt work for at least 3 major films. Seems to have a bit of a cult following as well, which would make him notable. The article needs works, but no reason to delete. Rasadam (talk) 18:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable as stunt performer. --Eastmain (talk) 10:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - We have a (seemingly) reliable source for one stunt role. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as IMDb documents several instances of stunt work and his home page asserts others; minimally notable. JJL (talk) 18:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Other than for screen writing credits, IMDb is not a reliable source. From a reliable source (the Variety listing), all we have is the distinctly non-notable one minor acting role and one stunt job. The subject's own website is not a source for evidence of notability, only basic biographical info. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no coverage about him. And in particular, the main assertion of notability appears to be his stunt work, but there is no coverage about him as a stunt performer. A list of credits isn't enough. -- Whpq (talk) 16:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - barely passes WP:N, but not sure if much of a stub can be created with the available sources. Bearian (talk) 20:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Based on what we have from reliable sources, how does this pass WP:N? Is it the one stunt job or the "Boy on Bike" role? - Mdsummermsw (talk) 12:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - appears to have a considerable following, and to be notable within his expertise. --T-rex 04:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - How do we know he has "a considerable following" and in what way do we reliably know of his notability? - Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Step one would be learning how to use google --T-rex 21:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - I've done a google search, so I guess I've failed to learn how to use google. Please provide links to the reliable sources that you've turned up in your search that establishes notability. I'm always glad to change to a keep when reliable sources are dug up. -- Whpq (talk) 21:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well then I suggest you stop editing wikipedia, and work on the internet basics first. If you are willing to discuss and AfD you need to be willing to do your own research --T-rex 03:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment - I've done the research. There aren't any reliable sources that I can find. On the other hand, you've put forth a keep opinion with no substantiation for it. A request for reliable sources put forward to you has been met with commentary about others ability to use google with an implication that we've somehow failed to find these sources. Yet you've produced nonn yourself. So as you say "If you are willing to discuss and AfD you need to be willing to do your own research". I'm simply asking for evidence of this research. -- Whpq (talk) 10:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I am simply choosing not to share what I've found, and make you do your own research --T-rex 14:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment - Thus you aren't contributing to the discussion, you're arguing instead and your arguments are not supported. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        But I am contributing I said that he "appears to have a considerable following, and to be notable within his expertise." Did I contribute further? no, but thats because I was under the (apparently mistaken) impression that people were capable of doing their own research. --T-rex 15:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment - That is not helpful. Several of us have said we are unable to find the coverage you say you have found. Please remain civil. Rather than saying that we are incompetent, please support your claim. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Stating my opinion is inherently helpful. Thats what AfD is about, is voicing your opinion. Perhaps you should just assume good faith, and trust me. or you can continue to bitch and complain, and try to get me to do your work for you. --T-rex 15:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Supporting your claim is not my work. I have noted your opinion. Do you have anything substantive to add? - Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The facts support my claim. I have nothing else to add. If you want to look things up you may do it yourself, if you don't want to that's cool too. --T-rex 16:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The facts presented do not. That's a "no". - Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No matter what following he may have, WP:BIO requires references to substantial coverage in reliable sources, which are not in evidence. Sandstein 08:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non notable. A few hard to reference appearances is hardly notable. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 17:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 22:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing significant in his career. A minor stuntsman with trivial coverage. DGG (talk) 06:15, 15 July 2008 (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.