Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gus Sorola (2nd nomination)

Gus Sorola

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Gus Sorola
• Articles for deletion/Gus Sorola (2nd nomination)

Gus Sorola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Being a computer technician and voice actor is not enough, not by a far stretch. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• Delete. I cannot find "significant coverage in multiple published[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[4] and independent of the subject...", which is required to meet the basic standard of notability under WP:BASIC. Neither is there any evidence of a) significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; b) a large fan base or a significant "cult" following or c) unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment, which are required to establish notability under WP:NACTOR. I therefore support the nomination on the basis of lack of notability, as destined in WP policy. Wikipeterproject (talk) 14:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - RoosterTeeth has one of the largest fanbases of the online gaming community, so I'm not too sure where there's no evidence of a "significant cult following". Also, as referred to in the previous AfD by User:I JethroBT, Red vs. Blue, which he has a significant role in, is one of the most notable types of machinima. Connormah (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

This AfD is not about Rooster Teeth, which has its own WP page and is not being considered for deletion. The notability requirements for a person need to assessed through the existence of secondary sources - and in this case there do not appear to be any supporting either he basic criteria for a person's notability or the the three more specific ones relating to actors. If there is a "significant cult following", nobody is writing about it (as far as I can tell), and that means there is a lack of credible source material to verify notability. On a side note, the previous AfD was in 2011 and in the three years since then not a single secondary source has been added to the article - the article continues to lack any reliable secondary sources whatsoever. Wikipeterproject (talk) 16:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• Delete the references in the article now are from IMDb (not reliable) and 3 are from the Rooster Teeth website (just a primary source), oh and Youtube but I wouldn't hold notability on that. No significant coverage, fails WP:GNG LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
• Keep per the last time this was nominated for deletion. Actor is notable. Article needs fixing, not deletion. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • EvergreenFir, that isn't a legit reason to keep per WP:NOTAGAIN LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Arguments from the previous nomination in 2011 can be restated here, but to keep now only because it was decided to keep then is not a valid argument. Claims that the actor is notable need to be supported with substance in accordance with policy - otherwise they should be disregarded in assessing the outcome of this debate. Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Wikipeterproject. I'm saying I agree with past arguments. Want me to copy-paste here? EvergreenFir (talk) 02:37, 11 June 2014 (UTC)