Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 January 1

1 January 2012

Carlon Jeffery

Carlon Jeffery (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Requesting that the actor have his own entry, I worked on it in my own userspace: User:QuasyBoy/Carlon Jeffery. Actor has a regular role in the A.N.T. Farm series, which was recently renewed for a second season. Other than A.N.T. Farm, he appeared in three episodes of Heroes. I figured, I would take this to deletion review, seeing that the decision on Sierra McCormick (Jeffery's A.N.T. Farm co-star) was overturned: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 December 19. QuasyBoy 23:15, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

• A clear consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlon Jeffery in July found that he failed WP:ENT (one significant role, needs two) and was not the subject of substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. There is no indication that anything of substance to this discussion has changed since then. Article X, Sierra McCormick, has considerably more coverage, considerably more roles and appears to pass WP:ENT. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

How does the actor having a three episode stint on a show (Heroes) that at one time was one of the most popular shows in the country and currently has a regular role on another show (A.N.T. Farm), which was just renewed for second season not pass WP:ENTERTAINER. It seems you only nominated the subject based on WP:TOOSOON, which maybe I understand because the first attempt for an article on the subject was shortly after the show premiered. Prior to A.N.T. Farm, I would say the subject shouldn't have an article, but this is clearly not the case now. As for "independent reliable sources", they can be added through regular editing. Deletion doesn't need to be the answer for everything. QuasyBoy 23:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

• Overturn. Meets WP:ENT #1 "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows ...". Assume notable film or TV Show is shown by having a wiki article. Multiple meaning more than one. Significant is a judgment call - Main role in A.N.T. Farm is one, recurring role in Heroes is at least the second. Body of work adds support. Three people formed the clear consensus in the original AfD 6 months ago. At the very least this article should be restored and another AfD started with an opportunity for more people to comment or form a stronger consensus one way or the other. In my opinion automatic speedy G4 after 6 months is a bit harsh particularly after a very limited contributor AfD. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC) Overturn as meets WP:ENT #1
• Comment That "significant role" in Heroes isn't mentioned in Heroes (TV series) or List of Heroes episodes. The character is covered in four sentences in List of Heroes characters. If that is "significant", we have a lot of articles to write on other actors before we get to this actor. As for writing that article, we need independent reliable sources to base the article on. Other than the Disney bio (the producer/station for his one apparently notable role), we have "Disney Orders Live Action Comedy 'Ant Farm'" which tells us ... absolutely nothing about Jeffery. So while we're overturning a valid AfD, we also need to clean upc this bit about "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Wikipedia:Verifiability#Notability Up until now, that's been policy, not a guideline. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The fact that the role is recurring in a major TV series is significant in of itself (and maybe we should be writing about a lot of other actors we are not). As for deletion Wikipedia:Third-party_sources#Articles_without_third-party_sources suggests "An article without third-party sources should not always be deleted. The article may merely be in an imperfect state, and someone may only need to find the appropriate sources to verify the subject's importance". The article should be tagged as needing sources, not deleted. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The AfD did not find sources for this BLP. No one here is providing sources for this BLP. Yes, there might be independent reliable sources out there. There also might be independent reliable sources out there about the pebble that found its way into my shoe this morning. Or not. Yes, the guideline you cited suggests unsourced articles should not always be deleted, because someone might find sources. That's what the AfD was for. No independent reliable sources exist for this BLP on an actor with one significant role. "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." If you believe such coverage does exist, go ahead and find it, rather than wasting your time here saying, gee, it might exist. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Keith Akers

Keith Akers (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I found book coverage - [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], and [6]. The deleting admin hasn't edited since August. SL93 (talk) 20:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• There's nothing stopping you from creating a new article with these sources, or from adding them to the old article (which has been moved to project space here). Provided the article has some sort of evidence of notability beyond that considered at the AfD then it won't be speedily deleted. Hut 8.5 20:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Alright. I will add them to the incubated article and fix the article up. SL93 (talk) 20:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I added the five sources (one of the above is a repeat) and moved the article to mainspace. There is more book coverage, but I think that should do. SL93 (talk) 21:51, 1 January 2012 (UTC)