Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nevin Millan

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. MuZemike 06:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nevin Millan

[edit]
Nevin Millan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Actor/producer with no major roles in a notable production, nor any awards for short films. OhNoitsJamie Talk 02:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do Not Delete.How can you claim that there are 'no major roles' in a 'notable production'? That is a matter of opinion. There are several films, both independently produced as well as studio produced, available for purchase in major chains like Blockbuster, as well as on the internet, not to mention, several television shows. Please remove information you cannot verify, but do not delete the page. Where does it say in the Wikipedia rules that a person has to be a major superstar with "major roles" to be listed? If you follow your proposed guidelines for deletion, literally half the artists on Wikipedia should be deleted. Please explain your rationale further, or edit the article to meet your requirements and please remove it from the deletion queue. Thank you.User:Nevpan —Preceding undated comment added 02:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC). — Nevpan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
You'd be asking about WP:ENTERTAINER then. As for the need to delete half the artists on Wikipedia, you may be right. Feel free to nominate them as WP:AfD. Josh Parris 03:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – You said, "Please remove information you cannot verify," (as is required by Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons), but you keep adding IMDb as your reference that the subject belongs to Mensa International, even though it is not considered a reliable source because it cannot be verified. — 138.88.125.101 (talk) 05:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Thanks for informing me about alot of this, I'm relatively new to these discussions and not aware of many of the sources and rules issues. Personally, I'm astounded that IMDb is not a 'reliable source' because I am aware that they have quite the rigorous verification process for projects and credits that are added (perhaps it is a source that should be re-looked at by Wikipedia to be made verifiable?), and besides, I know I've seen IMDb as a source for many postings on here. In any case, it is duly noted and thanks for letting me know. So, to remedy this, if additional sources are provided, the article should remain, correct? FYI, I'm still figuring out the signature stamp thing. Thanks for your patience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nevpan (talk • contribs) 06:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point … IMDb is an acceptable source that the subject had a role in film Xyzzy, but you can not trust any of the biographical information because that is not as closely monitored … for example, they modified my father's birth/death date/location based solely on a memorial Web page that I posted … in other words, they took my word that (a) I was related to him, and (b) that the information was correct … that's the kind of information that cannot be trusted on that site. — 138.88.125.101 (talk) 06:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, as I'm understanding it now, the actual performing Credits are verifiable with IMDb as a source, but not any additional information. What about 'Trivia' information for films/Performers? What about other listing websites such as IBDb.com (Internet Broadway Database)and Inbaseline.com (which is the system used by all the major studios)?--Nevpan (talk) 07:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Trivia sections are the least reliable … and those other sites suffer from the same problem, i.e., anonymous submission of information. — 138.88.125.101 (talk) 08:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete.Can someone PLEASE put a link to the Wikipedia rule where it says that actors/artists have to be 'Notable' to be listed and what is the determination or qualification for when someone has achieved 'Notability'? It all seems very arbitrary and some guidance to this for reference would be very useful. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nevpan (talk • contribs) 04:23, 27 October 2009
You'd be asking about WP:ENTERTAINER again. Please WP:sign your comments with ~~~~ so we know who said what when. If you disagree with the criteria for notability, build a consensus for changing it (at Wikipedia Talk:Notability (people)) and it will be changed. Josh Parris 04:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – To quote Wikipedia:Notability:

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.

This is in case you haven't figured out that you should click the words highlighted in blue … BTW, Wikipedia decisions are not made by popular vote, so you only need post Do Not Delete once (subsequent "votes" will be ignored.) — 138.88.125.101 (talk) 05:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Article lacks Attribution to Verify WP:Notability (people) or WP:Biographies of living persons notability criteria. Happy Editing! — 138.88.125.101 (talk · contribs) 05:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No indication of meeting our notability and verifiability standards. Prolog (talk) 06:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I have a suggestion for a total revision of this actor's page that I believe will qualify based on aforementioned discussion, please let me know if this will work. I would like to suggest that the article remain listed based on the fact of the actor's appearance in the television series 'Battles B.C.'. He starred in an episode as Pharaoh Ramses II, qualifying him as notable AND significant and this fact can remain linked to the Ramses II article where the film/TV portrayals are listed. And since there are very few portrayals of Ramses II listed in history of film/tv, this is a significant fact that should be listed on Wikipedia. In addition, there are 4 other distributed films, 'Didgori: Land of Sacrificed Knights', 'Whitewall', 'Last Exit', and '10,000 A.D.: Legend of a Black Pearl' in which the actor has significant credits, which I believe would qualify him as notable, given the current criteria for "notability". All other unverifiable biographical information can be deleted. Thoughts?--Nevpan (talk) 07:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure why you state that there are very few portrayals of Ramses II in films and television. IMDb lists more than two dozen of them. [1] Besides, playing a notable historical/Biblical figure is not an inherent guarantee of notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was referring to the Wikipedia article about Ramses II and the people it mentioned who've portrayed the character. Regardless, throughout a hundred years of filmmaking, being one of just over two dozen humans ever to portray a prolific historical character such as Ramses II on film or TV is quite significant, wouldn't you say? This is where the 'notability' requirements become arbitrary, but I think its pretty safe to assume that most people would say this is a notably worthy of mention. Especially since the program airs in millions of homes in the US as well as Canada, making the proliferation of this portrayal of this historical character quite far reaching.--Nevpan (talk) 09:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You really don't understand Notability, do you? See this Example of a stub with good WP:V to establish WP:BIO … for now, just create a sandbox version in User space at User:Nevpan/Nevin Millan (click the red text to create it), and then have some experienced editors review it before moving it to Article space. — 138.88.125.101 (talk) 08:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm pretty sure I understand what Wikipedia calls 'notability', however, I'm of the opinion that the Wikipedia provided guidelines regarding notability are not only ambiguous, arbitrary, and vague, but also quite antiquated given the breadth and plethora of electronic sources and means by which 'notability' can be confirmed and defined. That being said, I really appreciate your information and guidance in this matter and will try revamping the article best I can to better adhere to the current accepted protocols. In order to gain approval, would I post a link to the revamped article in my sandbox to this Afd?--Nevpan (talk) 09:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you can establish notability, the article will be preserved, but after changing the article you will probably need to contact the people who have voted thus far and ask them to reconsider.
It might be easier for you to create an article at User:Nevpan/Nevin Millan, work it up until you're satisfied with it, contact a few of the editors who have made comments here to see if your new revision is acceptable for an encyclopedia, and once it's in acceptable condition, move it into the article namespace (any editor will help you with this if you ask) - accepting that in the meantime, the existing article will be deleted. Be aware of WP:COI, and read Wikipedia:Your first article; articles which establish notability in their introduction ("Steve is famous for both causing the 2004 US Army invasion of Brazil and inventing the telephone") along with providing WP:verifiable references from WP:reliable sources supporting these claims will have a long, healthy life. Josh Parris 08:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • NEW ARTICLE – After taking the advice of several editors in this discussion, I have rewritten the article and cited all sources of information as much as possible. Please see the following sandbox article: User:Nevpan/Nevin Millan. If you approve, it would be great if you could support the re-posting of this article with the updated version. Thank you.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nevpan (talk • contribs) added 11:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - and ignoring the arguments of the COI (subject's agent), who doesn't understand notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, fails WP:ENT. Skarebo (talk) 01:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have read the new draft article referred to above. Clearly Nevpan has put a fair amount of work into the job, but sadly he has still missed the point of Wikipedia's notability criterion. The draft article gives clearly verifiable sources to confirm various facts about Millan, such as which high school he graduated from, and the fact that he has worked on certain films. However, there is absolutely no evidence given that either Millan or any of his work has received significant coverage in independent sources, reliable or otherwise. Unfortunately Nevpan does not seem to have realised that, while verifiability is important, unless the verifiable information is shown to satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria it is still no use. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:29, 30 October 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nevin_Millan&oldid=1087619932"