Rachel Starr – Deletion Endorsed. The consensus at DRV remains that the close was proper based on both the local consensus and general principles. That it is in tension with the subject notability guideline WP:PORNBIO reflects more negatively on the guideline than the close, though even a good guideline will have exceptions. Bringing this back to DRV is unlikely to achieve a different result unless more and better sources can be found. – Eluchil404 (talk) 23:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Rachel Starr (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) Restore. Meets the criteria for notability as set in WP:PORNBIO with multible nominations in different years. The person who deleted the article after this discussion. He mentioned that: There is also concern that the PORNBIO guideline may be too loose. So he made a clear mistake in not accepting the relevance criteria. So if I follow him she is unknown...OK. Then you should explain why she has Google hits. Otherwise the best arguments had Schmidt and he was ignored too. --Hixteilchen (talk) 08:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply] What's this, the fourth DRV about this "actress"? Last one is here. I endorse Stifle's accurate and sensible close of the AfD and the outcome of the subsequent DRV, and see no reason to reconsider the well-established consensus from less than six months ago.—S Marshall T/C 12:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply] In fairness this has only been properly discussed once, at the previous DRV. The first one was moot as a new draft was sufficiently different that G4 didn't apply but AFD deleted it anyway. This has had 2 DRVs and 2AFDs prior to this discussion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply] Endorse We are not required by WP:N to make articles on everything that passes the guidelines. For each type of articles, and for each individual article we can interpret them strictly of loosely, according to whatever the current consensus is. Stifle's closure in the afd was a statement that he thinks on the basis of the arguments presented that the consensus has changed towards interpreting the PORNBIO guideline a more strictly. I think he's correct. (I would also add myself to those at the afd who thought it should be changed in that direction -- I'd suggest changing "well-known award" to "major award" in the first part, and eliminating the criterion accepting nominations for awards. I'm not in the least opposed to extensive and detailed coverage of pornography and other sexual topics, but I think we've gotten unbalanced in this particular aspect.) At WP, the rules are not only what we write down, but what we customarily do: we're not bound by the written guidelines, and have in fact gone to the length of saying so as one of the basic rules. However, I do not think anyone should get angry at having it brought here: if we are correct that consensus has changed, it would be good to have this as a very visible discussion. The previous DRV was closed on other grounds. DGG ( talk ) 17:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply] Endorse Just to clarify my closing of the previous DRV, I was not only closing early for the attacks but also closing to endorse by the clear consensus of the discussion at the time of the close. Its quite clear that DRV no longer accepts PORNBIO over the GNG for the close of a pornstar AFD and as such its perfectly reasonable for the closing admin to depreciate keep arguments based on PORNBIO. If you really want this back you need to find some sources. If you can't, well.... Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply] Endorse An SNG is not a suicide pact. It appears clear to me that Stifle not only understands this, but correctly read and weighed the arguments in the AfD. A guideline is just that, and common sense needs to take part in any notability decision, particularly when WP:GNG is murky. I do agree with the overall sentiment that this needs to have greater discussion somewhere other than DRV, as that the overall feeling on WP:PORNBIO seems to have changed. Trusilver 19:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply] Endorse and ban editor from filing any future porn-related DRVs, editors can't be allowed to hammer DRV over and over on the same subject. Particularly when nothing has changed since the previous one. PORNBIO in its current form is too vague and too broad about this "multiple nominations" BS. Tarc (talk) 01:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply] Certainly do not ban him from filing for a deletion review; this is not abuse--the previous review did not solely focus on the issue presented here, but also on the unfortunate nature of the discussion. It was altogether right to ask for ask for wider confirmation. This is in effect a change in our guideline, and deserves full consideration. There seems clear opinion from different directions that such a change is overdue--but if nothing else, it has been valuable for both Tarc and myself to have the opportunity to say so simultaneously. Tarc, do you like my suggestions for changing the guideline: if so, we can proceed to reiterating the consensus on the guideline page also. The best way to clarify the relationship between GNG and SNGs in each case is an explicit statement in the SNG about what is intended. DGG ( talk ) 21:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply] Tarc, S Marshall and Spartaz you are well-known for mass deletion of porn actresses, show me one AFD you voted for Keep. That´s a fact. So when you don´t accept the rules and relevance criteria make new ones. But actually she passes WP:PORNBIO. That´s also fact.So lately when she gets one more nomination she is relevant enough. That you´re not regognizing her 15 Million google hits shows how you think. Applause. --Hixteilchen (talk) 14:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply] Irrelevant. You don't get it do you? You are applying a standard that DRV no longer accepts. PORNBIO isn't compatable with the requirement for BLPs to cite sources. Community expectations have moved on but you haven't. That's the issue. We have done this so many times. Are you actually listening because the evidence is that you are not. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply] At one time I thought that SNGs were simply intended to catch what the general notability guideline did not, but that's not really how it should work. You can't just rack up minor awards and especially not nominations and squeak in a biography creation for a person that would otherwise never pass the general notability. As for your initial question, while a non sequitur, I was curious as to the answer. So via snottywong's AfD checker, I see a lone keep for Christina Santiago. What it shows is that AfD is doing its job correctly by weeding out the non-notable crap and leaving the ones that are legitimately notable alone. Tarc (talk) 18:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply] Comment: There was no consensus to delete that I see in that AFD, the closing rationale doesn't even try to show otherwise. But the contingent of editors who personally feel bios like should not exist have taken notice of this one, so its recreation will be stalled for now. There are thousands of Rachel Roxxxs lying around, and more being created all the time as far as I can tell. Yes, basically I am saying attempts to keep articles like this deleted are largely futile in the long run.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply] Endorse and consider listing on WP:DEEPER. Stifle (talk) 13:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply] Reclose by same admin The closing asserts that there exists a "consensus that the article should be deleted having considered the technical PORNBIO pass". But what is the basis to claim this consensus? That one of our guidelines is "retarded"? Or that "many believe that WP:PORNBIO needs some tightening"? So it is not possible to discern that the "concern that the PORNBIO guideline may be too loose...is a discussion for elsewhere". As stated it appears that these actually are the reasons for the delete result. If concensus has changed, then there are two possibilities, (1) the guideline needs to be updated, or (2) there is a problem at Wikipedia in formally changing consensus. Whichever it is, WP:IDONTLIKE the guideline should not appear to be the basis of the closing. Unscintillating (talk) 21:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Rachel Starr – Deletion Endorsed. The consensus at DRV remains that the close was proper based on both the local consensus and general principles. That it is in tension with the subject notability guideline WP:PORNBIO reflects more negatively on the guideline than the close, though even a good guideline will have exceptions. Bringing this back to DRV is unlikely to achieve a different result unless more and better sources can be found. – Eluchil404 (talk) 23:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Restore. Meets the criteria for notability as set in WP:PORNBIO with multible nominations in different years. The person who deleted the article after this discussion. He mentioned that: There is also concern that the PORNBIO guideline may be too loose. So he made a clear mistake in not accepting the relevance criteria. So if I follow him she is unknown...OK. Then you should explain why she has Google hits. Otherwise the best arguments had Schmidt and he was ignored too. --Hixteilchen (talk) 08:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's this, the fourth DRV about this "actress"? Last one is here. I endorse Stifle's accurate and sensible close of the AfD and the outcome of the subsequent DRV, and see no reason to reconsider the well-established consensus from less than six months ago.—S Marshall T/C 12:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In fairness this has only been properly discussed once, at the previous DRV. The first one was moot as a new draft was sufficiently different that G4 didn't apply but AFD deleted it anyway. This has had 2 DRVs and 2AFDs prior to this discussion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse We are not required by WP:N to make articles on everything that passes the guidelines. For each type of articles, and for each individual article we can interpret them strictly of loosely, according to whatever the current consensus is. Stifle's closure in the afd was a statement that he thinks on the basis of the arguments presented that the consensus has changed towards interpreting the PORNBIO guideline a more strictly. I think he's correct. (I would also add myself to those at the afd who thought it should be changed in that direction -- I'd suggest changing "well-known award" to "major award" in the first part, and eliminating the criterion accepting nominations for awards. I'm not in the least opposed to extensive and detailed coverage of pornography and other sexual topics, but I think we've gotten unbalanced in this particular aspect.) At WP, the rules are not only what we write down, but what we customarily do: we're not bound by the written guidelines, and have in fact gone to the length of saying so as one of the basic rules. However, I do not think anyone should get angry at having it brought here: if we are correct that consensus has changed, it would be good to have this as a very visible discussion. The previous DRV was closed on other grounds. DGG ( talk ) 17:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Just to clarify my closing of the previous DRV, I was not only closing early for the attacks but also closing to endorse by the clear consensus of the discussion at the time of the close. Its quite clear that DRV no longer accepts PORNBIO over the GNG for the close of a pornstar AFD and as such its perfectly reasonable for the closing admin to depreciate keep arguments based on PORNBIO. If you really want this back you need to find some sources. If you can't, well.... Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse An SNG is not a suicide pact. It appears clear to me that Stifle not only understands this, but correctly read and weighed the arguments in the AfD. A guideline is just that, and common sense needs to take part in any notability decision, particularly when WP:GNG is murky. I do agree with the overall sentiment that this needs to have greater discussion somewhere other than DRV, as that the overall feeling on WP:PORNBIO seems to have changed. Trusilver 19:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and ban editor from filing any future porn-related DRVs, editors can't be allowed to hammer DRV over and over on the same subject. Particularly when nothing has changed since the previous one. PORNBIO in its current form is too vague and too broad about this "multiple nominations" BS. Tarc (talk) 01:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly do not ban him from filing for a deletion review; this is not abuse--the previous review did not solely focus on the issue presented here, but also on the unfortunate nature of the discussion. It was altogether right to ask for ask for wider confirmation. This is in effect a change in our guideline, and deserves full consideration. There seems clear opinion from different directions that such a change is overdue--but if nothing else, it has been valuable for both Tarc and myself to have the opportunity to say so simultaneously. Tarc, do you like my suggestions for changing the guideline: if so, we can proceed to reiterating the consensus on the guideline page also. The best way to clarify the relationship between GNG and SNGs in each case is an explicit statement in the SNG about what is intended. DGG ( talk ) 21:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tarc, S Marshall and Spartaz you are well-known for mass deletion of porn actresses, show me one AFD you voted for Keep. That´s a fact. So when you don´t accept the rules and relevance criteria make new ones. But actually she passes WP:PORNBIO. That´s also fact.So lately when she gets one more nomination she is relevant enough. That you´re not regognizing her 15 Million google hits shows how you think. Applause. --Hixteilchen (talk) 14:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. You don't get it do you? You are applying a standard that DRV no longer accepts. PORNBIO isn't compatable with the requirement for BLPs to cite sources. Community expectations have moved on but you haven't. That's the issue. We have done this so many times. Are you actually listening because the evidence is that you are not. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At one time I thought that SNGs were simply intended to catch what the general notability guideline did not, but that's not really how it should work. You can't just rack up minor awards and especially not nominations and squeak in a biography creation for a person that would otherwise never pass the general notability. As for your initial question, while a non sequitur, I was curious as to the answer. So via snottywong's AfD checker, I see a lone keep for Christina Santiago. What it shows is that AfD is doing its job correctly by weeding out the non-notable crap and leaving the ones that are legitimately notable alone. Tarc (talk) 18:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There was no consensus to delete that I see in that AFD, the closing rationale doesn't even try to show otherwise. But the contingent of editors who personally feel bios like should not exist have taken notice of this one, so its recreation will be stalled for now. There are thousands of Rachel Roxxxs lying around, and more being created all the time as far as I can tell. Yes, basically I am saying attempts to keep articles like this deleted are largely futile in the long run.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and consider listing on WP:DEEPER. Stifle (talk) 13:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reclose by same admin The closing asserts that there exists a "consensus that the article should be deleted having considered the technical PORNBIO pass". But what is the basis to claim this consensus? That one of our guidelines is "retarded"? Or that "many believe that WP:PORNBIO needs some tightening"? So it is not possible to discern that the "concern that the PORNBIO guideline may be too loose...is a discussion for elsewhere". As stated it appears that these actually are the reasons for the delete result. If concensus has changed, then there are two possibilities, (1) the guideline needs to be updated, or (2) there is a problem at Wikipedia in formally changing consensus. Whichever it is, WP:IDONTLIKE the guideline should not appear to be the basis of the closing. Unscintillating (talk) 21:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Robert A Foster (actor) – Deletion Endorsed – Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:14, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Robert A Foster (actor) (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) Restore. The page is about a young English Actor who first lead role was as Henry in Just William (2010 TV serial) Just William has just been nominated for 3 Baftas. This page has had many visitors to the page and people are intreated in him, if people did not want to know about him, they would not of visited the page but they did and you could see this from the visitor history before the page history was delete the other day, he had 560 visitors in 30days. He has done TV work, a Short Film and Modelling. It had good referencing and links to BBC News, IMDB and links to other wikipedia pages too. It met Notability guideline and Wikipedia:ARTIST, I do not feel it is TOO SOON as stated by some, he has had internet and press coverage . In a nutshell this page should not have been deleted and is of interest to people who wanted know about this actor. Just william Cast BBC Website Image of William (Daniel Roche) with the outlaws Ginger (Jordan Grehs), Douglas (Edward Piercy) and Henry (Robert Foster) in Just William,Cast up date on Just William Someone has also used info from his wikipedia page to make a Facebook public figure page. Please look at links Cast and Info about Just William IMDB Boy with the Chocolate Fingers as you can see this is just a few links. Please remember lots of adults and children look at wikipedia to find out information and facts and just because it might not be what you like, some people did find the page interesting due to the amount of visitor.Gem09 (talk) 15:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply] Robert A Foster (actor) page has been active for nearly 10 months, so why remove it now ?? More information had been added over this time by myself and others.Gem09 (talk) 15:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply] Overturn the close of "delete". I find it very difficult to understand why some people think that articles like this do not improve the encyclopedia. However, setting that aside, it seems to me that, although failing WP:ENT, the article arguably passes WP:GNG. So, I think we are in the area where editorial discretion may be used (either way) to decide on the fate of this article. At AfD the majority thought to "keep" and the arguments on both sides were (mostly) policy based. I think the reasonable consensus was to "keep". It is a severe disadvantage that the closing admin did not feel it necessary to provide a closing rationale and the reply on the closer's talk page describes "fail" as if it were a necessary result of applying the notability guidelines.[1] In cases such as this the guidelines are not based on hard "rules". I shall return here in a few days and change my !vote if a satisfying deletion rationale has emerged. Thincat (talk) 16:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply] I didn't feel it neccessary to explain the rationale because the majority of the keep !votes were SPAs and not based in policy. MQS had the strongest argument. As you said, it feel within "editorial discretion" and I felt that MQS's argument made the discussion learn toward delete.--v/r - T P 17:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply] I think that if we've got to be careful with BLPs, then we've got to be really very careful indeed with biographies of living children. If this wasn't an article about a child, I think I'd be !voting to overturn, but the fact that it's a child makes me ultra-cautious and conservative about it, and I'm presently inclined towards weak endorse.—S Marshall T/C 16:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply] I agree you have to be careful with biographies of living children but there are many other child actors on Wikipedia, this page does not give details of school or town where he lives, as do some pages for other child actors. All information is available from different sites due to him acting which has been put together in one place for people. More links- Robert A Foster IMDB,Robert and Isabel Website.Gem09 (talk) 18:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply] I do not see how the general caution for children applies to professional performers. DGG ( talk ) 19:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply] No British child is a professional performer. Our laws require that children (defined for this purpose as those under 16) are in education rather than practising a profession. (Some, such as the Harry Potter cast, are taught on set.) They can be well-paid for their amateur performances, but for all legal purposes, tax purposes, etc. they are students and not professionals. And I think that's the ethical stance as well. A child of this age has not made any decisions about what his profession might be.—S Marshall T/C 00:23, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply] Endorse doesn't seem to meet the GNG. Press releases, blogs and cast lists don't meet the need for independent non-trivial sources in this context. Hobit (talk) 20:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply] Endorse as original nominator. To me this seemed a clear case of failure to even met the minimal requirements of WP:ENTERTAINER:significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. This actor has been in a single notable TV series, but it is actually unclear how important his role was. He certainly wasn't the lead, nor was he nominated as a supporting actor[2]. Apart from that his accomplishments were a TV advert and a role in an as yet unreleased short film[3]. All the 3rd party references amounted to the mention of his name, if that, as can be seen by the links provided above. There were no significant sources that discussed the actor in the original article - nor were any provided in the AfD. Tassedethe (talk) 21:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply] I think you need to look at http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/proginfo/tv/2010/wk51/all.shtml You are right Robert A Foster did not play the lead, but he was one of the five main leads, if you don't know the story of Just William (2010 TV serial) he played Henry an Outlaw and has been credited if you look on IMBD You seem to have a real problem with this page. why??? Everything was referenced and of interest which could be clearly seen from the number of visitor to the page, it may not be what you like but we all have our interests. He has done modelling since 2006 http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4247744/resume and is listed on IMDB for Just William 2010 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1804877/fullcredits#cast as well as the BBC website http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00x50rn , you have to open the credits list up to see everyone. But please have a look and you will see a full list of credited cast. They do not list supporting actor, as in many TV/films.Gem09 (talk) 22:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply] Endorse, deletion review is not AfD part 2. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply] Endorse, a) Re-arguing the AfD here is inappropriate - the question is merely whether or not the closure was valid. b) It would have been helpful if the closing admin had put at least some explanation, because it is not clear from looking at the closure why it was closed in that manner; thus when looking at the close we have to second-guess the rationale behind it. So, TParis, re. "I didn't feel it neccessary to explain the rationale because the majority of the keep !votes were SPAs and not based in policy" - if you'd just written that in the closure, it would have been helpful. c) The policy-based arguments (viz. "doesn't meet WP:GNG") make sense to me; AfD is not a numeric vote; the 'delete' !votes seem to make logical arguments, I cannot find appropriate coverage either. TL;DR: decision was good, but at least a short rationale would've helped, TParis. Chzz ► 18:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply] Sorry, I figured it was obvious. The "not vote" tag at the top, the SPA tags on the IPs, and the "he did a short film also" parts. I just couldn't imagine how it could've been interpreted differently. But if several of ya'all are saying it wasn't so obvious then I should've left something.--v/r - T P 16:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply] _{_Endorse} Following my remarks above I have pondered over the information and opinions given here. I now think that, although a "no consensus" close would have been best, "delete" was, sadly, within administrative discretion. Anyway, the strong and responsible view here is that it was appropriate to delete the article. I personally find that rather strange. Thincat (talk) 09:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Robert A Foster (actor) – Deletion Endorsed – Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:14, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Restore. The page is about a young English Actor who first lead role was as Henry in Just William (2010 TV serial) Just William has just been nominated for 3 Baftas. This page has had many visitors to the page and people are intreated in him, if people did not want to know about him, they would not of visited the page but they did and you could see this from the visitor history before the page history was delete the other day, he had 560 visitors in 30days. He has done TV work, a Short Film and Modelling. It had good referencing and links to BBC News, IMDB and links to other wikipedia pages too. It met Notability guideline and Wikipedia:ARTIST, I do not feel it is TOO SOON as stated by some, he has had internet and press coverage . In a nutshell this page should not have been deleted and is of interest to people who wanted know about this actor. Just william Cast BBC Website Image of William (Daniel Roche) with the outlaws Ginger (Jordan Grehs), Douglas (Edward Piercy) and Henry (Robert Foster) in Just William,Cast up date on Just William Someone has also used info from his wikipedia page to make a Facebook public figure page. Please look at links Cast and Info about Just William IMDB Boy with the Chocolate Fingers as you can see this is just a few links. Please remember lots of adults and children look at wikipedia to find out information and facts and just because it might not be what you like, some people did find the page interesting due to the amount of visitor.Gem09 (talk) 15:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert A Foster (actor) page has been active for nearly 10 months, so why remove it now ?? More information had been added over this time by myself and others.Gem09 (talk) 15:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn the close of "delete". I find it very difficult to understand why some people think that articles like this do not improve the encyclopedia. However, setting that aside, it seems to me that, although failing WP:ENT, the article arguably passes WP:GNG. So, I think we are in the area where editorial discretion may be used (either way) to decide on the fate of this article. At AfD the majority thought to "keep" and the arguments on both sides were (mostly) policy based. I think the reasonable consensus was to "keep". It is a severe disadvantage that the closing admin did not feel it necessary to provide a closing rationale and the reply on the closer's talk page describes "fail" as if it were a necessary result of applying the notability guidelines.[1] In cases such as this the guidelines are not based on hard "rules". I shall return here in a few days and change my !vote if a satisfying deletion rationale has emerged. Thincat (talk) 16:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't feel it neccessary to explain the rationale because the majority of the keep !votes were SPAs and not based in policy. MQS had the strongest argument. As you said, it feel within "editorial discretion" and I felt that MQS's argument made the discussion learn toward delete.--v/r - T P 17:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that if we've got to be careful with BLPs, then we've got to be really very careful indeed with biographies of living children. If this wasn't an article about a child, I think I'd be !voting to overturn, but the fact that it's a child makes me ultra-cautious and conservative about it, and I'm presently inclined towards weak endorse.—S Marshall T/C 16:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree you have to be careful with biographies of living children but there are many other child actors on Wikipedia, this page does not give details of school or town where he lives, as do some pages for other child actors. All information is available from different sites due to him acting which has been put together in one place for people. More links- Robert A Foster IMDB,Robert and Isabel Website.Gem09 (talk) 18:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see how the general caution for children applies to professional performers. DGG ( talk ) 19:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No British child is a professional performer. Our laws require that children (defined for this purpose as those under 16) are in education rather than practising a profession. (Some, such as the Harry Potter cast, are taught on set.) They can be well-paid for their amateur performances, but for all legal purposes, tax purposes, etc. they are students and not professionals. And I think that's the ethical stance as well. A child of this age has not made any decisions about what his profession might be.—S Marshall T/C 00:23, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse doesn't seem to meet the GNG. Press releases, blogs and cast lists don't meet the need for independent non-trivial sources in this context. Hobit (talk) 20:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as original nominator. To me this seemed a clear case of failure to even met the minimal requirements of WP:ENTERTAINER:significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. This actor has been in a single notable TV series, but it is actually unclear how important his role was. He certainly wasn't the lead, nor was he nominated as a supporting actor[2]. Apart from that his accomplishments were a TV advert and a role in an as yet unreleased short film[3]. All the 3rd party references amounted to the mention of his name, if that, as can be seen by the links provided above. There were no significant sources that discussed the actor in the original article - nor were any provided in the AfD. Tassedethe (talk) 21:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to look at http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/proginfo/tv/2010/wk51/all.shtml You are right Robert A Foster did not play the lead, but he was one of the five main leads, if you don't know the story of Just William (2010 TV serial) he played Henry an Outlaw and has been credited if you look on IMBD You seem to have a real problem with this page. why??? Everything was referenced and of interest which could be clearly seen from the number of visitor to the page, it may not be what you like but we all have our interests. He has done modelling since 2006 http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4247744/resume and is listed on IMDB for Just William 2010 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1804877/fullcredits#cast as well as the BBC website http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00x50rn , you have to open the credits list up to see everyone. But please have a look and you will see a full list of credited cast. They do not list supporting actor, as in many TV/films.Gem09 (talk) 22:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, deletion review is not AfD part 2. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, a) Re-arguing the AfD here is inappropriate - the question is merely whether or not the closure was valid. b) It would have been helpful if the closing admin had put at least some explanation, because it is not clear from looking at the closure why it was closed in that manner; thus when looking at the close we have to second-guess the rationale behind it. So, TParis, re. "I didn't feel it neccessary to explain the rationale because the majority of the keep !votes were SPAs and not based in policy" - if you'd just written that in the closure, it would have been helpful. c) The policy-based arguments (viz. "doesn't meet WP:GNG") make sense to me; AfD is not a numeric vote; the 'delete' !votes seem to make logical arguments, I cannot find appropriate coverage either. TL;DR: decision was good, but at least a short rationale would've helped, TParis. Chzz ► 18:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I figured it was obvious. The "not vote" tag at the top, the SPA tags on the IPs, and the "he did a short film also" parts. I just couldn't imagine how it could've been interpreted differently. But if several of ya'all are saying it wasn't so obvious then I should've left something.--v/r - T P 16:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

_{_Endorse} Following my remarks above I have pondered over the information and opinions given here. I now think that, although a "no consensus" close would have been best, "delete" was, sadly, within administrative discretion. Anyway, the strong and responsible view here is that it was appropriate to delete the article. I personally find that rather strange. Thincat (talk) 09:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.