Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Evans (actor)

: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. It seems like most keep arguments are based on mere assertions, pageviews and things like "long history", none of which are adequate reasons to keep an article. Only the delete arguments have made somewhat detailed claims about whether the topic meets inclusion criteria or not, including source searches and analyses of the works the subject starred in. All these are sound arguments to raise in discussions about WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR and thus they carry the day here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:45, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

=[[:Charles Evans (actor)]]=

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|Charles Evans (actor)}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Charles_Evans_(actor) Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Charles Evans (actor)}})

Evans was a character actor and a bit part player. This is not the stuff of significant roles. Beyond that we lacks any reliable indepth source giving coverage of him. Wikipedia is not meant to be a mirror of IMDb, but that is what this article basically functions as. John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:07, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete. Original author here. Kill it. --Lockley (talk) 01:35, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep, based on a change of mind. --Lockley (talk) 19:33, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Evans gets good coverage at www.tvguide.com, he has a long history in Hollywood and needs to be found on wikipedia. The page is averaging 12 hits a day, good enough to keep. Carptrash (talk) 01:58, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

::Please note that, per policy, the number of hits a Wikipedia article is getting is entirely irrelevant to whether the article is worth keeping or not. -The Gnome (talk) 15:08, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:58, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:59, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:59, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:59, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

:*"Book sources", as in passing mentions and credit listings? Because I strongly doubt it would be anything more substantial. How does this distinguish him from the average journeyman actor? Clarityfiend (talk) 06:27, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

:*Beyond that, we do not keep articles because of alleged but not identified sources. People need to point to what these alleged sources are to justify having the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:04, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

:*The argument that "surely, there must be more sources out there" is unacceptable in AfD discussions. -The Gnome (talk) 15:08, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 18:18, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep WP:NEXIST actors and artists are known by their work. And this one had a long history in Hollywood mainstream productions. Lightburst (talk) 03:03, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 19:57, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep easily pass WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 05:29, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete I have to concur with Clarityfiend here; a list of films on TV Guide is not good coverage, and it doesn't even come close to satisfying GNG. This is a BLP with no sources for even basic biographical info, and has been since 2012. I've searched for web, news, and book sources that could be used for this article, and turned up nothing. I'm astonished to have to point this out, but the GNG requires {{xt|significant coverage}} in reliable sources, {{xt|traditionally more than one}}, which are independent of the subject, and only then is the subject presumed notable. Significant coverage can be a slippery concept, but the guideline expressly stipulates that {{xt|no original research is required to extract the content}}. In this article, nearly the entire lead sentence is original research. While TV Guide is a reliable source, it only gives Evans a routine filmography, not significant coverage, and is unsuitable for establishing notability, especially on its own. If anyone is able to turn up coverage of Evans in other reliable sources, those can then be evaluated, but with this AFD being in its third week, I won't hold my breath. The mere supposition that more sources could exist is not enough to keep. —Rutebega (talk) 23:26, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Actually, this is not a BLP. The subject has been dead for 23 years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:51, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Now his three roles in question have all been verified per WP:V as I added references. He meets WP:NACTOR for having multiple significant roles in notable movies The Dark Mirror (1946 film), Black Beauty (1946 film) and Killer at Large (1947 film) (all of which have Wiki articles), just like Atlantic306 has said. I would recommend the nominator to first challenge the notability of these three movies (unlikely that The Dark Mirror will get deleted, as it seems it has reviews in Variety, Radio Times and NY Times) and then come back and renominate this if he does succeed in that. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:42, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

::The role undertaken in The Dark Mirror by our subject actor is strictly peripheral (a D.A. who makes a couple of passing appearances) and the same goes for Black Beauty where he appears only in the beginning as the female-protagonist's father. It's only in Killer at Large that Evans gets at last a secondary actor's credit. How from these parts we leap onto satisfying WP:NACTOR I truly cannot fathom. -The Gnome (talk) 15:01, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete since subject fails WP:NACTOR. Having one's name listed in the all-including TV Guide confers to a person as much notability as being included in the phone book. As it happens, I'm a card-carrying fan of cinema trivia and obscurities but Wikipedia is not the place one should look for those. Contributors see the number of works in which the actor participated and presume notability. It's a misplaced presumption. -The Gnome (talk) 15:01, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Struck my vote and changed it per The Gnome's excellent reasoning. With that, he doesn't meet WP:NACTOR and he certainly doesn't meet WP:GNG as I was unable to find significant coverage of his, even in the books. The fact he appeared in many movies or that his page has views aren't rooted in policies or guidelines and should be discounted. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:41, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

:Comment Pinging {{u|Atlantic306}} to see the comments. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:41, 28 July 2019 (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.