Tristan Tondino – Deletion endorsed. – Xoloz 12:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Tristan Tondino (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` UNDELETE_REASON Joseane 22:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Joseane, take a look at the help pages. If there is substantial discussion of this artist in national press, then get the citations to it. You can always create the article as a draft on your user talk page (user talk:Joseane) until you believe it passes the deletion guidelines and then move it to article space and come to DRV with your reasoning on why this is a new article that has none of the faults of the deleted ones. Geogre 13:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse Deletion - The entire page was blank when this was created. There was nothing on the page whatsoever aside from an attempt at a hangon tag and the user's name. Smashville 16:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] (That was just the latest one. It appears that the contributor really is floundering when it comes to creating a page and isn't quite getting the hang of the standards. There were multiple attempts before. Hence my attempt at being nice.) Geogre 21:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn deletion, per this argument. Also, the user requesting undeletion is rather new (yes, Joseane has been editing since 2006, but the user only has 100 edits) and so I would encourage a more experienced editor, i.e. even more experienced than I and who better knows all the policies, to perhaps help provide this new user some mentorship on AfDs and deletion reviews as well as article creation. Joseane seems motivated and I think additional, constructive guidance will be helpful to that user. If anyone does decide to do so, please remember that Joseane is new. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion. Sorry, a user being new doesn't overrule a unanimous AFD, in my opinion. --Core desat 08:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion: I had thought it unnecessary to formally state this, but I guess not. Obviously, the user can get a mentor and craft the article in user space, but the deletions were just. Geogre 11:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: The people who wish for this to be deleted, should leave a note on the user's talk page as to why (not a boiler plate message). It might give us another constructive user if you are able to explain what is and is not acceptable into this encyclopaedia. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 20:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Tristan Tondino – Deletion endorsed. – Xoloz 12:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

UNDELETE_REASON Joseane 22:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joseane, take a look at the help pages. If there is substantial discussion of this artist in national press, then get the citations to it. You can always create the article as a draft on your user talk page (user talk:Joseane) until you believe it passes the deletion guidelines and then move it to article space and come to DRV with your reasoning on why this is a new article that has none of the faults of the deleted ones. Geogre 13:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Deletion - The entire page was blank when this was created. There was nothing on the page whatsoever aside from an attempt at a hangon tag and the user's name. Smashville 16:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- (That was just the latest one. It appears that the contributor really is floundering when it comes to creating a page and isn't quite getting the hang of the standards. There were multiple attempts before. Hence my attempt at being nice.) Geogre 21:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletion, per this argument. Also, the user requesting undeletion is rather new (yes, Joseane has been editing since 2006, but the user only has 100 edits) and so I would encourage a more experienced editor, i.e. even more experienced than I and who better knows all the policies, to perhaps help provide this new user some mentorship on AfDs and deletion reviews as well as article creation. Joseane seems motivated and I think additional, constructive guidance will be helpful to that user. If anyone does decide to do so, please remember that Joseane is new. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Sorry, a user being new doesn't overrule a unanimous AFD, in my opinion. --Core desat 08:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion: I had thought it unnecessary to formally state this, but I guess not. Obviously, the user can get a mentor and craft the article in user space, but the deletions were just. Geogre 11:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The people who wish for this to be deleted, should leave a note on the user's talk page as to why (not a boiler plate message). It might give us another constructive user if you are able to explain what is and is not acceptable into this encyclopaedia. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 20:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Nextgen – Overturned by JIP, if someone wishes to AFD feel free to do so. – —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 21:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Nextgen (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` The creator of the article left this message at my talk page: Hello, I was just curious as to why my article NextGen was deleted. This article was a start to the Next Generation Air Traffic control system being implemented within the United States currently. It is a multi-billion dollar project underway transitioning the current ground based radar system into a high tech satellite controlled system. It was not spam, unless it was hijacked without my knowledge, and should have offered no conflict of interest. The article should perhaps be restored as not intended as spam. JIP \| Talk 04:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Looks real, substantial, and unlikely to be spammed. [1] --SmokeyJoe 10:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and restore as deleted on incorrect grounds. Golfcam 14:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn Definitely not spam. Abberley2 21:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn, unlikely to fit spam criteria. --Dhartung \| Talk 22:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn per above, but rename to NextGen. While I know this currently goes to a dab, that dab doesn't disambiguate between anything actually called "NextGen" (so, perhaps a "for other uses" message on top of the NextGen article leading to the dab would suffice). -- Kicking222 01:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Undeleted per unanimous opinion above. JIP \| Talk 12:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Nextgen – Overturned by JIP, if someone wishes to AFD feel free to do so. – —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 21:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

The creator of the article left this message at my talk page:

Hello, I was just curious as to why my article NextGen was deleted. This article was a start to the Next Generation Air Traffic control system being implemented within the United States currently. It is a multi-billion dollar project underway transitioning the current ground based radar system into a high tech satellite controlled system. It was not spam, unless it was hijacked without my knowledge, and should have offered no conflict of interest.

The article should perhaps be restored as not intended as spam. JIP | Talk 04:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks real, substantial, and unlikely to be spammed. [1] --SmokeyJoe 10:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and restore as deleted on incorrect grounds. Golfcam 14:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Definitely not spam. Abberley2 21:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, unlikely to fit spam criteria. --Dhartung | Talk 22:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per above, but rename to NextGen. While I know this currently goes to a dab, that dab doesn't disambiguate between anything actually called "NextGen" (so, perhaps a "for other uses" message on top of the NextGen article leading to the dab would suffice). -- Kicking222 01:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted per unanimous opinion above. JIP | Talk 12:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Ken_Stein – Deletion endorsed. Fairly clear-cut case of CSD A7. – IronGargoyle 02:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Ken_Stein (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` invalid speedy deletion - The exact reason for deletion was "00:03, 24 August 2007 Jaranda (Talk \| contribs) deleted "Ken Stein" (CSD A7 (Bio): Biographical article that does not assert significance)" The article was about an American actor with five feature films (plus one in production), one major music video, and 20 stage productions in their career. If they're significant enough to be listed on IMDB and have newspaper articles written about them, why are they not significant enough for wikipedia?? I would have used the "hangon" tag to argue the point, but Jaranda kept prematurely deleting the article without giving me the opportunity. KennethStein 01:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] As deleted, it specified that the role was uncredited, and didn't make any mention of newspaper articles. Many people have imdb profiles who don't have enough information available about them to write an encyclopedic article. If you can turn up reliable secondary sources that document the notability of the subject then we can have an article. Also, it appears that you're writing about yourself. I'd recommend not doing that, and reading our policy on conflicts of interest. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Actually, the written biography stated that the first role was uncredited. But, the filmography actually listed four additional roles. The criteria listed on the "Criteria for notability of people" (WP:BIO) state: Entertainers: actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities: With significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions. Clearly, at least three of the roles would be cosidered "significant". Granted, an "uncredited" role would not qualify as significant, but four other roles were listed, in addition to the uncredited one. The article was deleted before it could be edited to include any additional information to demonstrate significance. If there is question about notability, that is more appropriate for research via AFD, not speedy deletion. KennethStein 00:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse Deletion WP:BIO requires entertainers to have major roles and a fan base. You have neither. Sasha Callahan 01:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] I must dispute that. What you are stating is factually incorrect. The "Criteria for notability of people" (WP:BIO) require a "significant" (not as you state "major") role OR "a large fan base or a significant "cult" following" they are two separate criteria. They are not both required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KennethStein (talk • contribs) Okay, you don't have either a significant role or a large fan base. I still endorse deletion Sasha Callahan 01:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Clearly, you are uninformed with regard to cinema if you would state "you don't have either a significant role...". You're making an arbitrary judgement based on your opinion, without having seen any of the films in question. (One could theoretically argue that, by definition, any credited role is "significant" - thus the reason is that it's a credited role). Others would argue that any character that has a unique impact on the storyline would be considered significant. But, by the very nature of opinions, what one person considers "significant", another might not. KennethStein 01:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] If you feel your so important to the world of film, go start a Ken SteinPedia. Sasha Callahan 01:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] If you are incapable of rationally debating a point of contention without making sacrastic personal attacks, then perhaps your opinion shouldn't be voiced in a public forum where it is subject to a counter-argument.KennethStein 01:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Perhaps we shouldn't call a user "uninformed" because she disagrees with you. You need to realize that you do not meet this projects criteria for notability. You've played yourself, a courtroom observer/bar patron, and dancing/laughing student. You're a glorified extra. Bye-Bye Ken Stein on wikipedia. Sasha Callahan 01:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] "Uninformed" was a statement of fact. The comments you made clearly demonstrate an unfamiliarity with regard to the entertainment industry. You're no more qualified to be debating cinema than I would be debating the historical significance of the Crimean War or particle physics. You might have a leg to stand on if you could refrain from personalizing the debate and keeping the debate professional and polite. The thinly veiled and openly sarcastic insults have no place in a debate. I could refer to you as a "glorfied housewife," but that really would just be mudslinging. You want to debate rationally, I'm all over that, but I have more respect for others who might read this than to resort to your (obviously limited) level of discussion. KennethStein 02:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Only after looking at your profile, did I realize you were 16, which explains your immaturity. Perhaps my time would be better spent debating someone who [I don't know...] has a drivers license, or has actaully graduated high school, or for that matter, can simply vote... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KennethStein (talk • contribs) 02:11, August 24, 2007 (UTC). I suggest you both please mind the civility rules. Ken - people of all ages are welcome to participate; Sasha - chill out, no need to personalize this debate. I think you guys both need to ease up on the ad hominems. Wickethewok 14:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment I suggest both of you read WP:NPA in its entirety, and follow it. Thanks. —Kurykh 02:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Strong Endorse - In addition to complete lack of notability, article is autobiographical Smashville 02:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Question - There's 4 "Ken Stein" listings at the imdb, I assume this is Ken Stein (IV), since I is a director, II is a crewman, and III is dead? If so, minor billing in a porn film, 2 uncredited roles, and 11th billing as a ghoul in an indie silent film is pretty insignificant in terms of notability. Tarc 03:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse I do not believe speedy would have been a mistake or error of process. The subject's IMDB credits state the case clearly. An actor of genuine stature would be able to assert notability amply in the opening paragraph, and not simply reposting a deleted bio, nor try to build a Walled garden of films he's appeared in in unnamed roles. Even if the films he's appeared in were notable, he may still not be. And I don't think he is notable. Ohconfucius 03:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment - The trouble I have with defining "significance" is that is is largely based on opinion, and often by people the least qualified to determine it. For example: Tarc states (incorrectly) "...and 11th billing as a ghoul in an indie silent film is pretty insignificant in terms of notability...". If he knew how to read IMDB, he'd realize that "ghoul" is the second of two roles in the film, with "Minister's Henchman" being the bigger of the two. Not having seen the film, it's easy to assume that with a non-descript name like "Minister's Henchman" that the role is not "significant". But would one say the same of "Number Two" (Dr. Evil's henchman) in Austin Powers? Perhaps. Perhaps not. One could reasonably argue that Robert Wagner's role was significant, while another could probably argue the opposite. Some people would define "significant" as any character that has a unique impact on the storyline. That's the trouble when people start opining, especially regarding a subject about which they have limited or no knowledge, you often get lost in the "my opinion is right and yours isn't" debate, which is, of course, unwinnable. Another issue is then the dozens or hundreds of articles regarding people (for example: Michael Paré), whose "notabilty" is debatable. Why does he get a page, and someone else not. Of 100 people on the street, how many would recognize the name? I suspect not very many. But when you say "the guy from Eddie and the Cruisers" or Hope Floats, then they go "Oh yea..." does that make him "notable" or the role "significant"? KennethStein 04:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] I can read just fine good sir, but can you answer a question? This is what appears to be the official movie poster. Which one are you? Tarc 13:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Answer to Tarc - To my knowledge, that's not the official movie poster, that has yet to be released. I am not pictured there, although I can be seen briefly in the teaser-trailer. Perhaps ironically enough, while the four actors in the middle are lead/suporting actors, the ones on each end of the photo are extras (possibly "featured extras"). (Perhaps I should have stated "interpreted IMDB", I was not attempting to impugn your reading ability). On another note - Because the film is still classified as "in production" the credits are subject to change. I may wind up 3rd or even 33rd in credits order. My understanding is that I'll actually have 3 seperate acting credits in the film (because I have 3 different roles - two of which are in heavy makeup/prosthetics as ghouls). There are several methods for determining the credtits order for a film: 1. In order of prominence in the film; 2. In order of appearance in the film; 3. Alphabetical order; 4. (I've even seen) Indeterminate or random order.208.101.170.165 16:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] If it is a poster hosted by the production company used to advertise the film, that if pretty much what I'd call "official", and if you aren't even in that.... it seems like you're a minor character in a movie that itself is having questions of notability over in its own AfD. Maybe someday this'll come out different, but for now I gotta go with an endorse delete. Sorry. Tarc 17:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment to Tarc - I'm not sure why you keep referring to a photo on a webpage as a "poster", it meets no definition of "poster" that I'm aware of (perhaps you can enlighten me...). I've already made it clear that my character is a supporting role. I never claimed to be one of the leads, or that I'm going to be accepting an Oscar this coming March. The point of the debate was whether the role is significant, which is one test for determining "Criteria for notability of people" [Entertainers](WP:BIO), which reads: "Entertainers: actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities: With significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions.". It doesn't say "Lead Role" or "Top Billing" or "in the 1st ten credits listed" nor does it define "major" or "minor" characters - it says the role must be "significant". By definition, a suopporting role is considered significant. 208.101.170.165 18:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] This is not the same as Michael Paré. Just because he's not a household name doesn't mean that he's not significant or notable. He had a regular supporting role on a major primetime network TV show. And the lead role in a major motion picture (albeit a flop) in the 1980's. Smashville 15:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse Clearly not notable and COI issues to boot. Sasha Callahan should take it easy though. These COI posters will get pissed a lot but antagonizing them just makes it worse. --Daniel J. Leivick 04:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment - an "interest" is not the same as a "conflict of interest". A conflict of interest is a situation in which someone in a position of trust, such as a lawyer, insurance adjuster, a politician, executive or director of a corporation or a medical research scientist or physician, has competing professional or personal interests. It should also be noted, that there is no rule against someone creating their own page or editing their own article. It is only advisable to use caution when doing so. The idea is to maintain a tone of neutrality or impartiality. Which is why it a simple statement of verifiable historical fact should be OK, while critical praise or salutations would not be...KennethStein 04:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] This user is refering to the Wikipedia policy about conflicts of interest. Atropos 05:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse Deletion Even before we get into the significance of the roles in question, it would seem that even the films themselves are not notable, in that they do not follow the guidelines of Wikipedia:Notability (films). Now, that being said, if it were necessary to travel into the world of "significance" I'd be willing to wager that the two uncredited roles are not significant (although I may be wrong), and that the role in the pornographic film, even if it was a significant role, was not in a notable film, due to the simple mass-production of pornography. In addition, the fourth film is indeed not notable, so signficance is not even subject to question. All in all, I have no quarrel with the manner of the initial deletion, and no evidence of misconduct/misplaced judgement, so I see no reason to overturn the decision. Calgary 07:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion - Arbitrary judgments on significance aside, there are no independent reliable sources discussing this individual and thus fails WP:ATT/WP:V/WP:OR. Wickethewok 14:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] 11th credited in the cast of what he considers his magnum opus, the only film produced by the production company, according to imdb, and it hasn't even been released yet. If it becomes a huge cult hit and the actor becomes a cult favorite and there are lots of commentaries about him in reliable sources, then relist, but until then, endorse deletion. Corvus cornix 16:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Answer to Corvus cornix - LOL. I don't recall ever using the term "magnum opus" (I don't even know what that is, but I may have to file that away for my press interviews...). Yes it is the first film for Michael Pleckaitis's production company (RevScope) but it's not his first film as director, it's his 4th. Google him. There are plenty of results. 208.101.170.165 16:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion, not even barely notable. Fails WP:BIO via reliable sources criterion. Although accomplished as a creative professional, has not reached the level of notability necessary for a Wikipedia article. --Dhartung \| Talk 22:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion. My sister has an IMDB profile, and she ain't notable either. Roles such as "laughing student","henchman" and "courtroom observer" argue that this individuals career thus far has been as an extra, nothing more. Not everybody in the movie business is notable. Reso lute 21:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion. No ass ertion of notability; clearly an A7. Carlossuarez46 22:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion this is pretty cut and dry. Ken, learn a little about wikipedia policies and you'll see there is currently no room for an article about you here. Sethie 01:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Over-turn deletion, list at ((afd)) Well over half the views expressed here are out of order. ((drv)) is not ((afd)). If my reading of the rules for ((drv)) is correct, when an article is listed here on ((drv)) the discussion is not supposed to focus around whether or the article in question belongs on the wikipeida. The only points that are in order here are points about whether the wikipedia's rules on deletion were followed. User:KennethStein says he tried to put a ((hangon)) on the article, but he was prevented by User:Jaranda. The deletion log does show that did delete the article twice, just three minutes apart. The record also shows no attempts on Jaranda's part to contact User:Kenneth Stein. I think what should have happened is: Jaranda should have seen that the offencder was a new contributor, and left a note, something like: Did you realize you just recreated an article that was deleted according to WP:CSD? Did you realized that any administrator is authorized to eliminate such recreations on sight?" KS should have explained to Jaranda, what he wrote above, that he was in the process of address the concern about signficance when the article was deleted out from under him. Jaranda should then have restored the article. The policies don't state a fixed time between when a nominator placed a speedy deletion notice, and when an administrator can come along, note that there was no ((hangon)), and delecte the artcile Given that there is no deadline it would be completely unreasonable for Jaranda to assert that KS's attempt to place the ((hangon)) were three minutes, or less, too late. I have no problem if Jaranda noted to KS that the article in question seemed autobiogrphical, and warned that special rules applied to autobiographical articles. I have no problem if Jaranda told KS to read the relevant rules on articles about one's self, and warned KS that they were going to check back in 24 hours, and that they would initiate an ((afd)) if the article didn't comply with policy. In fact I think this would have been the responsible thing to do. I am going to repeat that all the arguments above, about whether or not the article merited inclusion are out of order. Only argument as to whether the wikipedia's policies were followed sensibly are in order. P.S. If the aritcle is restored, and listed for ((afd)), I would like to suggest that participants here give KS 24 hours to read the policies on contributing to articles about yourself, and do his best to dig up references that support significance.. I suggest giving him 24 hours to do his best to come up with a draft that he thinks has a fair chance to withstand ((afd)). When he got a 12 hour block recently, the note on his talk page told him it was not a punishment, just an opportunity for him to cool off. I think it would best serve the wikipedia if we were gracious. If, even after 24 hours, we still think the article isn't viable, nothing prevents us from being tactful in how we express that opinion. Geo Swan 20:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] note: While this was a valid deletion (hangon is not a requirement, admins don't have to read the arguments from the hangon request, but they often do), the deleting admin should have been a bit better about informing the new user. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 20:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] I should also point out that notes on the merit of the article here as pertains to speedy deleted articles is not entirely bad. See the case of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/EasyProjectPlan, in which I pointed out to the creator our basic content standards, at the drv, and later when it moved to AFD, the creator requested deletion. The point being is that if something gets speedy deleted, and the creator is unable or unwilling to make the basic improvements to meet our verifiability policy or any other policy, leaving it deleted is often the best thing to do, as long as there is the possibility to recreate a version of the page that does meet our policies. (this is only a good idea to do in cases where at DRV its blatantly obvious that it does not meet any policy). —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 20:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Ken_Stein – Deletion endorsed. Fairly clear-cut case of CSD A7. – IronGargoyle 02:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

invalid speedy deletion - The exact reason for deletion was "00:03, 24 August 2007 Jaranda (Talk | contribs) deleted "Ken Stein" (CSD A7 (Bio): Biographical article that does not assert significance)"

The article was about an American actor with five feature films (plus one in production), one major music video, and 20 stage productions in their career. If they're significant enough to be listed on IMDB and have newspaper articles written about them, why are they not significant enough for wikipedia?? I would have used the "hangon" tag to argue the point, but Jaranda kept prematurely deleting the article without giving me the opportunity. KennethStein 01:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As deleted, it specified that the role was uncredited, and didn't make any mention of newspaper articles. Many people have imdb profiles who don't have enough information available about them to write an encyclopedic article. If you can turn up reliable secondary sources that document the notability of the subject then we can have an article. Also, it appears that you're writing about yourself. I'd recommend not doing that, and reading our policy on conflicts of interest. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the written biography stated that the first role was uncredited. But, the filmography actually listed four additional roles. The criteria listed on the "Criteria for notability of people" (WP:BIO) state: Entertainers: actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities: With significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions. Clearly, at least three of the roles would be cosidered "significant". Granted, an "uncredited" role would not qualify as significant, but four other roles were listed, in addition to the uncredited one. The article was deleted before it could be edited to include any additional information to demonstrate significance. If there is question about notability, that is more appropriate for research via AFD, not speedy deletion. KennethStein 00:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Deletion WP:BIO requires entertainers to have major roles and a fan base. You have neither. Sasha Callahan 01:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I must dispute that. What you are stating is factually incorrect. The "Criteria for notability of people" (WP:BIO) require a "significant" (not as you state "major") role OR "a large fan base or a significant "cult" following" they are two separate criteria. They are not both required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KennethStein (talk • contribs)
  - Okay, you don't have either a significant role or a large fan base. I still endorse deletion Sasha Callahan 01:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Clearly, you are uninformed with regard to cinema if you would state "you don't have either a significant role...". You're making an arbitrary judgement based on your opinion, without having seen any of the films in question. (One could theoretically argue that, by definition, any credited role is "significant" - thus the reason is that it's a credited role). Others would argue that any character that has a unique impact on the storyline would be considered significant. But, by the very nature of opinions, what one person considers "significant", another might not. KennethStein 01:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - If you feel your so important to the world of film, go start a Ken SteinPedia. Sasha Callahan 01:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        If you are incapable of rationally debating a point of contention without making sacrastic personal attacks, then perhaps your opinion shouldn't be voiced in a public forum where it is subject to a counter-argument.KennethStein 01:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Perhaps we shouldn't call a user "uninformed" because she disagrees with you. You need to realize that you do not meet this projects criteria for notability. You've played yourself, a courtroom observer/bar patron, and dancing/laughing student. You're a glorified extra. Bye-Bye Ken Stein on wikipedia. Sasha Callahan 01:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        "Uninformed" was a statement of fact. The comments you made clearly demonstrate an unfamiliarity with regard to the entertainment industry. You're no more qualified to be debating cinema than I would be debating the historical significance of the Crimean War or particle physics. You might have a leg to stand on if you could refrain from personalizing the debate and keeping the debate professional and polite. The thinly veiled and openly sarcastic insults have no place in a debate. I could refer to you as a "glorfied housewife," but that really would just be mudslinging. You want to debate rationally, I'm all over that, but I have more respect for others who might read this than to resort to your (obviously limited) level of discussion. KennethStein 02:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Only after looking at your profile, did I realize you were 16, which explains your immaturity. Perhaps my time would be better spent debating someone who [I don't know...] has a drivers license, or has actaully graduated high school, or for that matter, can simply vote... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KennethStein (talk • contribs) 02:11, August 24, 2007 (UTC).
        
        I suggest you both please mind the civility rules. Ken - people of all ages are welcome to participate; Sasha - chill out, no need to personalize this debate. I think you guys both need to ease up on the ad hominems. Wickethewok 14:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I suggest both of you read WP:NPA in its entirety, and follow it. Thanks. —Kurykh 02:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Endorse - In addition to complete lack of notability, article is autobiographical Smashville 02:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question - There's 4 "Ken Stein" listings at the imdb, I assume this is Ken Stein (IV), since I is a director, II is a crewman, and III is dead? If so, minor billing in a porn film, 2 uncredited roles, and 11th billing as a ghoul in an indie silent film is pretty insignificant in terms of notability. Tarc 03:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I do not believe speedy would have been a mistake or error of process. The subject's IMDB credits state the case clearly. An actor of genuine stature would be able to assert notability amply in the opening paragraph, and not simply reposting a deleted bio, nor try to build a Walled garden of films he's appeared in in unnamed roles. Even if the films he's appeared in were notable, he may still not be. And I don't think he is notable. Ohconfucius 03:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The trouble I have with defining "significance" is that is is largely based on opinion, and often by people the least qualified to determine it. For example: Tarc states (incorrectly) "...and 11th billing as a ghoul in an indie silent film is pretty insignificant in terms of notability...". If he knew how to read IMDB, he'd realize that "ghoul" is the second of two roles in the film, with "Minister's Henchman" being the bigger of the two. Not having seen the film, it's easy to assume that with a non-descript name like "Minister's Henchman" that the role is not "significant". But would one say the same of "Number Two" (Dr. Evil's henchman) in Austin Powers? Perhaps. Perhaps not. One could reasonably argue that Robert Wagner's role was significant, while another could probably argue the opposite. Some people would define "significant" as any character that has a unique impact on the storyline. That's the trouble when people start opining, especially regarding a subject about which they have limited or no knowledge, you often get lost in the "my opinion is right and yours isn't" debate, which is, of course, unwinnable. Another issue is then the dozens or hundreds of articles regarding people (for example: Michael Paré), whose "notabilty" is debatable. Why does he get a page, and someone else not. Of 100 people on the street, how many would recognize the name? I suspect not very many. But when you say "the guy from Eddie and the Cruisers" or Hope Floats, then they go "Oh yea..." does that make him "notable" or the role "significant"? KennethStein 04:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can read just fine good sir, but can you answer a question? This is what appears to be the official movie poster. Which one are you? Tarc 13:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Answer to Tarc - To my knowledge, that's not the official movie poster, that has yet to be released. I am not pictured there, although I can be seen briefly in the teaser-trailer. Perhaps ironically enough, while the four actors in the middle are lead/suporting actors, the ones on each end of the photo are extras (possibly "featured extras"). (Perhaps I should have stated "interpreted IMDB", I was not attempting to impugn your reading ability).
On another note - Because the film is still classified as "in production" the credits are subject to change. I may wind up 3rd or even 33rd in credits order. My understanding is that I'll actually have 3 seperate acting credits in the film (because I have 3 different roles - two of which are in heavy makeup/prosthetics as ghouls). There are several methods for determining the credtits order for a film: 1. In order of prominence in the film; 2. In order of appearance in the film; 3. Alphabetical order; 4. (I've even seen) Indeterminate or random order.208.101.170.165 16:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a poster hosted by the production company used to advertise the film, that if pretty much what I'd call "official", and if you aren't even in that.... it seems like you're a minor character in a movie that itself is having questions of notability over in its own AfD. Maybe someday this'll come out different, but for now I gotta go with an endorse delete. Sorry. Tarc 17:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Tarc - I'm not sure why you keep referring to a photo on a webpage as a "poster", it meets no definition of "poster" that I'm aware of (perhaps you can enlighten me...). I've already made it clear that my character is a supporting role. I never claimed to be one of the leads, or that I'm going to be accepting an Oscar this coming March. The point of the debate was whether the role is significant, which is one test for determining "Criteria for notability of people" [Entertainers](WP:BIO), which reads: "Entertainers: actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities: With significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions.". It doesn't say "Lead Role" or "Top Billing" or "in the 1st ten credits listed" nor does it define "major" or "minor" characters - it says the role must be "significant". By definition, a suopporting role is considered significant. 208.101.170.165 18:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the same as Michael Paré. Just because he's not a household name doesn't mean that he's not significant or notable. He had a regular supporting role on a major primetime network TV show. And the lead role in a major motion picture (albeit a flop) in the 1980's. Smashville 15:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Clearly not notable and COI issues to boot. Sasha Callahan should take it easy though. These COI posters will get pissed a lot but antagonizing them just makes it worse. --Daniel J. Leivick 04:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - an "interest" is not the same as a "conflict of interest". A conflict of interest is a situation in which someone in a position of trust, such as a lawyer, insurance adjuster, a politician, executive or director of a corporation or a medical research scientist or physician, has competing professional or personal interests.
- It should also be noted, that there is no rule against someone creating their own page or editing their own article. It is only advisable to use caution when doing so. The idea is to maintain a tone of neutrality or impartiality. Which is why it a simple statement of verifiable historical fact should be OK, while critical praise or salutations would not be...KennethStein 04:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user is refering to the Wikipedia policy about conflicts of interest. Atropos 05:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Deletion Even before we get into the significance of the roles in question, it would seem that even the films themselves are not notable, in that they do not follow the guidelines of Wikipedia:Notability (films). Now, that being said, if it were necessary to travel into the world of "significance" I'd be willing to wager that the two uncredited roles are not significant (although I may be wrong), and that the role in the pornographic film, even if it was a significant role, was not in a notable film, due to the simple mass-production of pornography. In addition, the fourth film is indeed not notable, so signficance is not even subject to question. All in all, I have no quarrel with the manner of the initial deletion, and no evidence of misconduct/misplaced judgement, so I see no reason to overturn the decision. Calgary 07:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - Arbitrary judgments on significance aside, there are no independent reliable sources discussing this individual and thus fails WP:ATT/WP:V/WP:OR. Wickethewok 14:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11th credited in the cast of what he considers his magnum opus, the only film produced by the production company, according to imdb, and it hasn't even been released yet. If it becomes a huge cult hit and the actor becomes a cult favorite and there are lots of commentaries about him in reliable sources, then relist, but until then, endorse deletion. Corvus cornix 16:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Answer to Corvus cornix - LOL. I don't recall ever using the term "magnum opus" (I don't even know what that is, but I may have to file that away for my press interviews...). Yes it is the first film for Michael Pleckaitis's production company (RevScope) but it's not his first film as director, it's his 4th. Google him. There are plenty of results. 208.101.170.165 16:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, not even barely notable. Fails WP:BIO via reliable sources criterion. Although accomplished as a creative professional, has not reached the level of notability necessary for a Wikipedia article. --Dhartung | Talk 22:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. My sister has an IMDB profile, and she ain't notable either. Roles such as "laughing student","henchman" and "courtroom observer" argue that this individuals career thus far has been as an extra, nothing more. Not everybody in the movie business is notable. Reso lute 21:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. No ass ertion of notability; clearly an A7. Carlossuarez46 22:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion this is pretty cut and dry. Ken, learn a little about wikipedia policies and you'll see there is currently no room for an article about you here. Sethie 01:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Over-turn deletion, list at ((afd))
- Well over half the views expressed here are out of order. ((drv)) is not ((afd)). If my reading of the rules for ((drv)) is correct, when an article is listed here on ((drv)) the discussion is not supposed to focus around whether or the article in question belongs on the wikipeida. The only points that are in order here are points about whether the wikipedia's rules on deletion were followed. User:KennethStein says he tried to put a ((hangon)) on the article, but he was prevented by User:Jaranda. The deletion log does show that did delete the article twice, just three minutes apart. The record also shows no attempts on Jaranda's part to contact User:Kenneth Stein. I think what should have happened is:
  1. Jaranda should have seen that the offencder was a new contributor, and left a note, something like: Did you realize you just recreated an article that was deleted according to WP:CSD? Did you realized that any administrator is authorized to eliminate such recreations on sight?"
  2. KS should have explained to Jaranda, what he wrote above, that he was in the process of address the concern about signficance when the article was deleted out from under him.
  3. Jaranda should then have restored the article. The policies don't state a fixed time between when a nominator placed a speedy deletion notice, and when an administrator can come along, note that there was no ((hangon)), and delecte the artcile Given that there is no deadline it would be completely unreasonable for Jaranda to assert that KS's attempt to place the ((hangon)) were three minutes, or less, too late.
  4. I have no problem if Jaranda noted to KS that the article in question seemed autobiogrphical, and warned that special rules applied to autobiographical articles. I have no problem if Jaranda told KS to read the relevant rules on articles about one's self, and warned KS that they were going to check back in 24 hours, and that they would initiate an ((afd)) if the article didn't comply with policy. In fact I think this would have been the responsible thing to do.
- I am going to repeat that all the arguments above, about whether or not the article merited inclusion are out of order. Only argument as to whether the wikipedia's policies were followed sensibly are in order.
- P.S. If the aritcle is restored, and listed for ((afd)), I would like to suggest that participants here give KS 24 hours to read the policies on contributing to articles about yourself, and do his best to dig up references that support significance.. I suggest giving him 24 hours to do his best to come up with a draft that he thinks has a fair chance to withstand ((afd)). When he got a 12 hour block recently, the note on his talk page told him it was not a punishment, just an opportunity for him to cool off. I think it would best serve the wikipedia if we were gracious. If, even after 24 hours, we still think the article isn't viable, nothing prevents us from being tactful in how we express that opinion. Geo Swan 20:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
note: While this was a valid deletion (hangon is not a requirement, admins don't have to read the arguments from the hangon request, but they often do), the deleting admin should have been a bit better about informing the new user. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 20:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I should also point out that notes on the merit of the article here as pertains to speedy deleted articles is not entirely bad. See the case of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/EasyProjectPlan, in which I pointed out to the creator our basic content standards, at the drv, and later when it moved to AFD, the creator requested deletion. The point being is that if something gets speedy deleted, and the creator is unable or unwilling to make the basic improvements to meet our verifiability policy or any other policy, leaving it deleted is often the best thing to do, as long as there is the possibility to recreate a version of the page that does meet our policies. (this is only a good idea to do in cases where at DRV its blatantly obvious that it does not meet any policy). —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 20:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.