Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AJ Vaage

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=AJ Vaage}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=AJ Vaage}})

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of an actor and filmmaker, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for actors or filmmakers. The attempted notability claim here is an ensemble (not solo) win at the Canadian Comedy Awards, which would be fine if the article were properly sourced but is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass WP:GNG. But the article is referenced almost entirely to primary sources (e.g. directory entries, film credits sourced to the self-published catalogues of film festivals that screened them rather than notability-building coverage about them, etc.), alongside a couple of news articles that briefly namecheck Vaage's existence without being about him in any non-trivial sense, none of which is support for notability.
There's also a likely conflict of interest here, as the article was created by a WP:SPA named "Skitsandplays".
Nothing here is "inherently" notable without better sourcing for it than this. Bearcat (talk) 00:34, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 00:34, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep: meets WP:NACTOR with at least 2 significant roles in notable productions (That's So Weird! and Y llegaron de noche). If the first is judged much more important than the latter, the page could be redirected to its cast section. Coverage to verify the first and expand includes https://www.thestar.com/entertainment/television/that-s-so-weird-parody-draws-the-tweens/article_82bed3d3-617d-5f6e-8b9e-7ee1b92d2314.html (on the page); https://www.insidehalton.com/things-to-do/thats-so-weirds-aj-vaage-does-improv-battle-in-oakville/article_c8858f5f-cac8-5eb7-bc21-89ee2975b42b.html (based on an interview) Coverage for verification of the second includes: https://www.chicmagazine.com.mx/personajes/y-llegaron-de-noche-actores-y-personajes-en-la-serie, https://oem.com.mx/elsoldemexico/gossip/eugenio-derbez-hace-reir-en-dos-idiomas-con-y-llegaron-de-noche-13133549 etc. -Mushy Yank. 01:13, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

::An actor does not automatically get over NACTOR just because it's possible to show cursory verification that roles were had — we have to see sources that are substantively about him and his performances, not just sources that glancingly namecheck his existence, because just having roles is not a "get out of WP:GNG" card. But three of those four links are just cursory namechecks, not substantive coverage, and the only one that does anything more than just briefly glance off his existence comes from a suburban community pennysaver, and thus isn't enough to get him over GNG all by itself if it's the only substantive source he's got. Bearcat (talk) 01:51, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

:::No. An actor meets NACTOR if the coverage allows to verify he had significant roles in notable productions. And that is the case. What you are describing is GNG.. NACTOR is a valid path to notability, independently. -Mushy Yank. 10:50, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

::::No. An actor meets NACTOR if he has GNG-worthy sourcing about him and (at least some of) his performances, and does not meet NACTOR on simple verification of existence. If all you had to do to get an actor over NACTOR was provide cursory verification that roles were had, and didn't have to show any GNG-worthy coverage about him and his performances, then every single actor who exists at all would always pass NACTOR. No SNG is ever passed just by asserting passage of the SNG, because passage of SNG criteria can easily be lied about — so it's not the statement that gets a subject over an SNG, it's the quality of the sourcing that can be shown to verify that the statement is true. Bearcat (talk) 17:58, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::????!!!......

:::::Someone "does not meet NACTOR on simple verification of existence"....Sure.....but that's not what I said!

:::::"If all you had to do to get an actor over NACTOR was provide cursory verification that roles were had": sure.....but again that's not what I said.

:::::"No SNG is ever passed just by asserting passage of the SNG"... Did someone here simply assert passage of SNG without mentioning anything else?

:::::No SNG is ever failed just by asserting failure of the SNG.

:::::What I said and I'll repeat it: "An actor meets NACTOR if the coverage allows to verify he had significant roles in notable productions." And I'll repeat also that NACTOR is a valid path to notability, independently of GNG. Are the 2 productions notable? Are the 2 roles significant? Is there coverage to verify it? In my opinion, yes. Please do not make me say things I haven't said. THANK YOU. -Mushy Yank. 23:17, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:29, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
• Delete No substantial independent sources. He is named as the producer on various short films, and was a member of an ensemble that won an award, but has not individually won a major award. Lamona (talk) 06:09, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
• Delete Agree with points made by Bearcat. No coverage and no significant achievements.Tehonk (talk) 07:56, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
• delete - lacks significant in deprh coverage and was forced into mainspace by an obvious spam sock. a search for this insividual doesnt appear to meet even our lowest GNG standards. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 20:55, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
• :You will need to bolden "delete" to be counted as vote. RangersRus (talk) 23:08, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::Lmao no that's not how it works. CUPIDICAE❤️ 01:43, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nom and fails to meet WP:NACTOR. RangersRus (talk) 23:07, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
• Soft Delete - I would have suggested it been draftify because it has potential of been notable but at present couldn't find source to sustainGodovereverthing (talk) 06:59, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.