Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Black (actor)

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. Killiondude (talk) 04:34, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

William Black (actor)[edit]

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

This page lacks any reliable sources. What we have here are sources that aim to be comprehensive databases listing everyone involved in acting with no regard for impact, and which due to various issues have been judges by the Wikipedia community to not meet the criteria of reliable sources. Articles should be based on reliable sources, which we have lacking here. There is no clear evidence that any of his roles ever fit the description of a substantial role in a notable production. His film roles seem to have been minor and forgettable, and it is not clear any of his stage roles were even in productions that were notable. My google search for sources turned up absolutely nothing that was close to a notable source. It did near the start give me a hit for Bill Cosby, showing that entering the term William Black and actor into google get some interesting results. I also learned there have been other actors who went by both William Black and Bill Black, so if this article is kept, it may well need to be moved to William Black (actor born 1871).John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:18, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NACTOR. IBDb is a reliable source since it is not WP:USERGENERATED. MarnetteD|Talk 00:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the original creator of the article. Frankly, I don't understand the policy rationale under which this is nominated, since I believe the subject passes the notability requirements for an actor, and the nominator didn't actually provide a policy-based reason for deletion. IBDb is, as MarnetteD says, not a user-generated database such as IMDb, it is owned, compiled and run by The Broadway League -- the official national trade association for Broadway theater. I have had occasion to correct credits in the database, and in my discussions with them, I was required to provide proof of the change I wanted to make in the form of references such as printed programs and other reliable sources. Their information is based on their archives of Broadway productions and other reliable research materials. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and if kept, no disambiguation is needed, since we don't have articles on those other actors. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:37, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:37, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:38, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable per WP:NACTOR. IBDb reference seems perfectly reliable, as explained by commenters above. -- Begoon 02:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment none of the above have demonstrated that the broadway database in any way limits its coverage to people who are involved in significant roles in notable productions, which is what would be needed to show that it is a source that adds towards notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:30, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be confusing notability as an article-level standard with an entry-level standard, just as you did when you mass-removed multiple entries from the articles of notable actors such as Gilbert Roland, ZaSu Pitts, Leon Ames and others. [1] It's quite possible for the career of a notable actor to consist in large part of non-notable roles, especially during the studio era, when most actors were essentially indentured servants who were required to do whatever the studio bosses told them to do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:45, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Having performed leading roles in several original Broadway productions and revivals of significant works satisfies encyclopedic notability. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He is an important actor of the time. '"Xargov'" 17:21, 24 January 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.