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. Consensus is that the sourcing is lacking and the vast majority of the keep arguments are not citing policy while the delete side certainly does. And for the record IMDB is NOT and never will be a reliable source as they have next to no content control Spartaz Humbug! 15:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kristian Ayre

[edit]
Kristian Ayre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnotable actor. Fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:N. Prod removed by IP with no edit summary or reason given. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She did not have a major role in an InuYasha movie - she isn't Japanese nor was the role "major". Doing a dub of it later doesn't make it any bigger. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What about the rest that I listed? Joe Chill (talk) 02:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First series, one season and cancelled. Second is barely verifiable, but seems to be the same sort of thing. Third, a film where her role was so minor it was not even worth noting in the plot. Voyage of the Unicorn, unnotable television film. And the final, she is not even mentioned in the entire article. That certainly isn't any kind of major or minor role. Ent does not say "a bunch of minor roles in unnotable works" but "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having one season doesn't mean automatic notability. Most shows are notable. So we still have Space Cases, Bang Bang, You're Dead, Bye Bye Birdie, and 18 episodes in Nothing Too Good for a Cowboy. Joe Chill (talk) 02:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, none of those are notable, as already noted. They didn't last one season, they were canceled early, and neither o fthe two dead series have significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. The only reason they have articles is a misguided idea that if they aired at all, it makes them notable enough even if they will never be more than stubs and OR. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bang Bang, You're Dead: Winner of multiple awards. I really doubt that a Snick series, even if it was canceled early, is non-notable. The article doesn't say anything about early cancellation. Bye Bye Birdie: Multiple award winner including nominated for two Oscars. Joe Chill (talk) 02:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and as already noted, she did not have SIGNIFICANT roles in either of those. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Prove it. None of the articles list minor roles. Joe Chill (talk) 02:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Spaces Cases: Major. I'll check the rest. Joe Chill (talk) 02:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bang Bang You're Dead: Major. Joe Chill (talk) 02:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As you seem determined to mix major roles in unnotable series with insignificant roles in notable works to try to some how many significant roles in notable works, this discuss is pretty pointless and I'm not going to just keep repeating myself. Her roles were minor in the notable works, as already noted, and the other works are not notable. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the cast list, you will see that they are major roles. Prove that Space Cases and Bang Bang, You're Dead isn't major. Prove that the Inuyasha movie is a minor role. Prove that the cast list includes minor roles. What don't you understand about award winners and a Nickelodeon show? If you can't prove that stuff, why repeat? It is common knowledge that usually only major roles are listed in Wikipedia articles. Joe Chill (talk) 02:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BURDEN is on those claiming HE is notable (at least, per the article...so guess that shows just how much coverage Ayre has really gotten and how much attention is really even being paid by those defending him as notable) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Copy and pasting out of IMDB is neither a reliable source nor actual proof that the roles were significant and the works major. Nor is the TV.com link you added a reliable source either. Further, this is a living person, so WP:BLP does apply here. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not conduct original research, which would include doing an interview with anyone via email or anyone else. You yourself talking about him on your personal blog does not give him notability, nor would your calling "fans" to promote him. He must be discussed in reliable, THIRD-PARTY sources - newspapers, magazines, books, etc. Not just fans and friends and those who have worked with him trying to give him notability by talking about him. We also have very strict policies about handling articles on living people, both for Wikipedia's protection and their own. Its the same policy that would keep someone from going to Peter David (AGF that you are him) and writing a bunch of vitrol about you and sourcing it to their blog. You may always wish to refactor the last bit of your reply, as some could consider it a threat. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing the double requirement - "reliable, third-party", not just third party. Blog comments and forum postings are not reliable sources. His being regarded or admired by fans is not evidence of notability. Your comments on your blog is also not a reliable, third-party source showing notability, it only would show that there was off-line actions being taken to try to influence this AfD (which is also against Wikpiedia policy and would hurt the AfD and article more than anything). Again, if he is notable, point to actual, reliable, third-party sources: news reports about him, magazine articles about him, etc and not blog postings and self-published commentary. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep is not an option. Editors can not assert notability without verification and sources. IMDB is not a reliable source and can not be used to verify nor prove notability. The actor must have significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources, both to meet WP:N, WP:BIO, and to comply with WP:BLP. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is this material somehow contentious? Even potentially contentious? Have I missed some BLP policy update that means WP:BLP is of concern when this is not the case? If there are insufficient sources, this is a sourcing issue, not an AfD issue. If you disagree that the asserted notability is notable enough, say that instead. - BalthCat (talk) 00:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, sorry I screwed up the page with that edit of mine a little while ago. It was an honest mistake. Nightscream (talk) 18:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Peter also confirmed it with me via email. I stand corrected.

Peter, the fact that someone else exhibited arrogance towards you (which I did not dispute) has no bearing on whether you yourself did. Your previous words seemed a lot like the kinda thing I'd hear from John Byrne. But hey, how you comport yourself is your business, and it seems I miscalculated in thinking you would not say stuff like that.

That said, I would appreciate it if you addressed me by my Wikipedia username, and not by that other name, which I do not use when editing or participating in discussions.

As for the more pertinent issue here, Wikipedia has various policies and guidelines in place to ensure the reliability of its article content. It's important that you understand that notability is determined by whether the subject has received significant coverage in reliable publications pertinent to the area in which the subject is notable. Because of this, the personhood of a source is not the sole salient criteria, but the venue of the source. Preferred publications are things like periodical articles, books, and reliable Internet sites would be ones like Newsarama, which is a notable industry publication staffed by journalists and governed by certain editorial controls. The difficulty in tracking down sources like that is noted, but that doesn't change the need for them. Regardless of whether your identity here has been confirmed, we cannot source notability for an article to a Wikipedia Talk Page, since Wikipedia cannot cite itself as a reliable source for notability. Such a practice would be circular, and poor criterion. The fact that you are a colleague/friend of Mr. Ayre also raises the issue of the journalistic objectivity that is generally assumed with sources not connected to the article's subject. Comments like "[he] has every right to be properly represented on Wikipedia" doesn't help matters, since whether one has an article on Wikipedia should be predicated on the notability that can be established by third-party sources not connected with the subject, and not the subject's "right" to have an article. I'm sure you can understand the problem of using your participation on a Wikipedia Talk Page as a source, right?

What I would suggest is that you address any issues of documented fact (as opposed to personal statements like "fine young actor") pertaining to Ayre's notability by providing links to or other citation information on any articles you can find on him that help in this regard. Although I personally think he's noteworthy, doing this might satisfy those who are currently leaning toward "Delete". Nightscream (talk) 03:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the same discussion we always have with these deletionist people. They try to delete articles for bestselling novels, because they don't have any reviews, and thus can't be notable. And they say the number of Google hits doesn't count either, because it doesn't matter how many people know about something and are talking about it, since their opinions don't matter. Only the opinions of those who are writing reviews for newspapers and magazines matter, we not allowed to think for ourselves, but having to let them make all the decisions instead. Wikipedia used to be different, but then certain types of people rushed in, passed their notability guideline saying nothing they don't like is notable, and then went about mass deleting thousands of articles a week. AFD are all random draws, depending on who is around at the time to comment, and the opinions of the closing administrator. This'll probably close as no consensus, default to keep though. Dream Focus 07:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's exaggerating things a bit, don't you think? Powers T 13:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yeah. IMDb doesn't count because it's user-edited. Anyone can put just anything in there and we can't trust its reliability. Same thing for fan sites; we don't have any way to verify how accurate information on those sites is. Powers T 13:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So you're basically saying that IMDB can't be trusted because other people can edit it, and therefore Kristian's list of credits on there is suspect? Okay, well...first of all, irony again considering people level the same charge at Wikipedia. Second, you do realize that if you go to Variety's website and enter Kristian's name, between the list of movie credits and the reviews of his various TV shows, you get pretty much all the same information. Since it seems a safe assumption that Variety's site is not prone to being edited by others, doesn't that give you what you need?Padguy (talk) 17:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[1] is just a list of three roles he's played. I don't think any of those bare facts are in dispute. Okay, so here's the deal. There are a number of different interests we have to satisfy here. One is notability. We can't have articles on every actor in the world, so we have to have some sort of inclusion criteria, which we've grouped together as a metric of "notability". In particular, we have to look and see if independent, reliable, published sources have chosen to write in detail about a particular topic. Why do we require this? Well:
  • We require independent sources so that we know it's not just advertising or self-aggrandizement. Kristian's own web site, for instance, is reliable and published, but not independent.
  • We require reliable sources so that we have some basic assurance that our data is accurate. A biography appearing on IMDb, for instance, is independent and published but not reliable.
  • And we require published sources so that other people can verify our data. A personal interview with you, to take an example, would be independent and reliable but not published.
Now, to be fair, a person for whom we cannot find such sources may in fact be notable. That we can't find the sources doesn't mean they don't exist, but neither can we simply assume that they do. We need to use those sources, though, to write the article. If we can't find enough sources to prove notability, then we have very little to go on to write an article. Powers T 19:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB is not considered a reliable source because it has no editorial controls for its content. Wikipedia does, as seen by discussions like this one. In addition, editors are not permitted to cite other Wikipedia articles (See WP:CIRCULAR), and Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales himself has stated that Wikipedia should be used only as a starting point in research, with which a researcher should follow the citations to the original sources, and not as a primary source in itself. So ironic as you may find it, but these policies are perfectly consistent and reasonable.

Again, putting aside the DreamFocus' exaggerations, I think Ayre is easily notable, given that he was on a TV series for two seasons, created by and co-starring a number of noteworthy people, that won a Cable Ace Award, etc. It's obvious that there are sources out there; we just need some patience in allowing editors to find them and cite them. To this end, a ((refimprove)) tag on the article would be perfectly reasonable. Deleting it would not. Nightscream (talk) 20:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a list of three roles he's played? Well...no. If you don't click on the word "More" then it's a list of three roles he's played. If you click on "More" then it's a list of half a dozen or so movies that he's been in, and that doesn't count the other articles which detail the TV series he's been in. I mean, I pointed you to the exact sort of source you're asking for to verify Kristian's list of roles and then you didn't actually use it and mischaracterized it to boot. Do you see why I consider the proposition of combing through 48,600 google hits for more evidence to be a dubious notion at best? Between this and the pronoun problems and misinformation about "Space Cases," do you see why I might look with raised eyebrow at claims of all this dedication to getting things right and my inability to understand why Kristian's entry is being subjected to this level of scrutiny? I mean, this is quite a can of worms being opened here. This is my introduction to the entire notion of discussions about deletion, and thus far it's been riddled with misinformation and contradictions. And that's just the one I know about. It makes any reasonable person wonder how many of the hundreds of other discussions are likewise based upon misinformation. It's like when I read newspaper articles about comic books and I see they get all kinds of stuff wrong. In the grand scheme of things, comic books aren't really that important: Not when compared to things like health care or the economy. So it makes me wonder how many other things the newspapers get wrong that I don't know about. Doesn't build confidence, is all I'm saying.Padguy (talk) 20:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you're right, I didn't see the More button. But my point stands -- it's still just a list of roles. I don't think anyone has disputed that he has played a number of roles, nor what those roles are. What we need is biographical information. Powers T 13:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, actually I figured that was exactly what people were disputing--the number of roles he had and what those roles were. For instance, there was a whole exchange above (with the woman who still hasn't acknowledged she didn't even know Kristian's gender) about a role being "major" or not. So I thought that WAS the issue. Now you need "biographical" information? This is making less and less sense to me. Look, I've sat behind a casting table and the only measure of an actor's "notability" was his CV. We didn't give a rip about where he was born, his parents' names, where he went to high school, if he made the Dean's list in college or even--frankly--his reviews. We cared about his roles, period. An actor whose resume consisted of being in the background of a commercial was less "notable" than an actor who had starred in three TV series. So now IMDB's limitation is that its biographical information isn't necessarily trustworthy? Perhaps your point stands, but I'm not seeing the point of your point. (And by the way, I'm just curious: Are you guys SURE that IMDB has no internal editorial braintrust that in fact vets the information? Do you know this first hand? I mean, not to put too fine a point on it, but there has been factual error after factual error put forth by you guys in this discussion, so how am I to know that when you say IMDB is unreliable, that I can take your word for it since thus far this discussion has been pockmarked with unreliable information.) Again, this seemingly elastic, amorphous definition of what's required to have a Wikipedia entry is becoming increasingly perplexing to me, is all I'm saying.Padguy (talk) 17:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the reality of a community-edited encyclopedia. Think of us like USENET trying to actually produce something useful. We aren't all going to be giving you the same message because we don't all agree on everything.
There are a number of issues at play here. One is notability -- and we aren't a casting director, so we have different standards than you would when you are looking to cast a role. And notability has many facets -- there's "is he likely to be notable based on his verified body of work", "can we prove he's notable by referencing reliable sources", etc. Because we all have different definitions of what makes a topic notable, we have to rely on external sources. So far, no one has presented an external source that has covered Kristian in enough detail for use to consider him notable.
As I said before, though, that doesn't mean he isn't notable, just that we can't prove it to our normal level of satisfaction (and some people in this discussion believe that we can, so please just take the above as my own opinion).
The discussion about what he has and has not appeared in was oriented to get to the bottom of the question "is he likely to be notable based on his verified body of work?" There are many cases in which we decide to keep an article because the subject's specific properties indicate that there should be sources out there that we can use, we just haven't found them yet. For actors, I would say that Kristian's body of work is right on the borderline between someone we should expect to find sources about and someone who just may have flown under the media radar so far. If the former is more correct, then his article is likely to be kept; if the latter is more correct, we'll wait and write an article once other media sources have done so.
-- Powers T 15:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No matter how many times you italicize "other media sources" we're going to wind up going right back to my original point: most of those media sources are going to have me at their core, whether it's as the writer or the interviewee, and that's where this entire standard to which you're holding Kristian's entry falls apart. For instance: If I had never participated in this discussion at all, and someone else had endeavored to point out the July 19, 1996 issue of "Comic Buyers Guide" which describes Kristian's being a featured guest at an SF convention in London and subsequently being a special guest on the set of "Red Dwarf" and dining with the show's cast and creator, or the May 2, 1997 issue of that same publication which talks about "Space Cases" describing the terrific cast and listing him first, would that be considered a reliable source about his "notability?" Yes? Okay, except I wrote both those columns, so now those...what? They don't count? That's what I'm talking about when I speak of the vagueness and elasticity. Also, your selection of what is acceptable and not acceptable is odd. You basically describe the entirety of Usenet as useless, so I see where the attitude that dismisses fan sites comes from. You dismiss IMDB out of hand, except in actually doing some research, I found this at the IMDB site describing their information-gathering process: "(A)bout 70% of our staff is dedicated to processing the massive amounts of information we receive and add to the database every week. In addition to using as many sources as we can get our hands on, our data goes through a large number of consistency checks to ensure it's as accurate and reliable as possible." So basically they have a staff that edits this material whereas you guys are community-edited and, by your own words, can't all agree. But IMDB isn't up to your standards? Look, I don't pretend to be the brightest bulb in the box, so maybe this is all clear to far smarter people than I, but from my POV, this is bizarre, inconsistent, and not the least bit resembling anything that I learned to constitute "journalism" back when I was getting my BA in Journalism during the Mesozoic era.Padguy (talk) 16:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I missed the reference above to your column in Comics Buyer's Guide. Without having it available in front of me, I can't say how significant its coverage is. I can't find anywhere in the above discussion where anyone questioned the reliability or independence of such a source; no one has said it "doesn't count". If we can somehow find a copy of that issue of CBG, that would probably be enough satisfy my notability concerns. Powers T 20:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Powers: "What we need is biographical information." Um, no, what we need is information that pertains to the reasons why the subject is notable, and that's a question of his career, which is part of his "biography".

Padguy: "...most of those media sources are going to have me at their core..." Peter, who the person is that a story has "at their core" is not the basis upon which the reliability of a source is measured for notability. It's the place where the material is reported. This is because organizations that are considered reliable generally are assumed to have a group editorial process with some type of credentialing of its staff, and/or some practice of discriminating with the material it decides to publish or not publish. A single individual, even a famous or respected one, asserting notability for a friend and colleague, does not share this same element. I don't understand why it's so difficult for you to understand the problems that what you're suggesting would lead to. If Wikipedia allowed notability of a subject to be conferred merely by a single person, don't you see the abuse to which such an indiscriminate standard would open up? Put this way:

Think a public figure who is considered notable in their field. Maybe, despite their stature, they're someone whose judgment and responsibility you personally don't think is that great. Now imagine they have a friend who's done some work in that field, but very minor, obscure work. That public figure wants ensure that their friend gets a Wikipedia article, so he asserts that they're notable, and claims himself as the source. Wouldn't this become a problem under the system you insist upon? It is for this reason that notability is derived from whether a subjected is recognized by third party sources, and that refers to publications, venues, awards given, etc., and not individual people. It is for this reason that pointing out the issues of CBG that covered Ayre is appropriate, because CBG is the reliable source, and not because "Well, Peter David said so." If you, John Jackson Miller, Tony Isabella, Bob Ingersoll, etc. didn't have CBG as the venue in which to publish your work, and it was only seen on your personal blog, it would not be reliable.

As for IMDB, I've long-believed that there needs to be a more decisive, project-wide consensus discussion or policy decision on its reliability, because while most think it's unreliable, many think it's unreliable only for biographical information, and perfectly reliable for credit listings, and in general, it remains a controversial issue. Nightscream (talk) 02:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I reiterate that we need biographical data beyond simply a list of credits. A simple list of credits is pure data and not representative of the "significant coverage" required by WP:N.

Delete. He has had a significant role in one notable television show, multiple roles are needed for WP:ENT. Space Cases is notable and this (a reliable, third party source) shows that it ran for two seasons, that it is about 5 kids, and that Mr Ayre portrayed one of them. If someone can show that one of his other roles meets these criteria I will happily change my !vote. J04n(talk page) 12:15, 14 November 2009 (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.
More