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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Largely based on GNG j⚛e decker ^talk 16:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gus Sorola

(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)[reply]

Delete. I cannot find "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- EvergreenFir, that isn't a legit reason to keep per WP:NOTAGAIN LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

EvergreenFir - Perhaps you could just summarise the main points of the arguments you wish to incorporate into this current debate? Copy-paste is not desirable, in my opinion. Wikipeterproject (talk) 13:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of arguments: He satisfies all 3 criteria of WP:NACTOR. He's a voice actor for a main character in Red vs. Blue (which he also cofounded) and also a voice actor in The Strangerhood. Red vs. Blue is a video series with 241 episodes and is currently in its 12th season. Some of its content was included with the release of Halo 3, DVDs of the seasons are sold at Game Stop, and they had a film in the Sundance Film Festival (see also 1 and 2) . His work has been the subject of reviews (1, 2, 3) and he's mentioned on other websites (1 and 2). EvergreenFir (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, EvergreenFir - appreciate the summary. I recommend that the closing administrator should look at the above sources as part of the closing decision to determine whether they are adequate to meet WP:GNG. As stated in my delete opinion, above, I do not believe that either GNG or the three notability criteria for WP:NACTOR are, in fact, met. Wikipeterproject (talk) 08:05, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is, the three references (whether reliable or not) are reviews of Red vs. Blue; Sorola is only mentioned once by name in the first two, not at all in the third. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:03, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clarityfiend yes, but in my reading of WP:NACTOR that's all that's needed. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:48, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. --Bejnar (talk) 13:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.