Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Parsons

: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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 23:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

=[[Nathan Parsons]]=

:{{la|Nathan Parsons}} ([{{fullurl:Nathan Parsons|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Parsons}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

fails WP:ENT. Ironholds (talk) 16:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

:Delete There does not appear to be any independent sources which cover this person in a substantive manner. A few sources list the jobs he has held, but that does not supply the depth of coverage required by the inclusion criteria at WP:N. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Delete Clearly fails WP:ENT, no significant coverage in reliable sources. ukexpat (talk) 17:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Delete - non-notable entertainer. Note that there is an article about his character, Ethan Lovett, which article seems to be getting a free ride on the theory that all characters in this soap opera are prima facie notable! --Orange Mike | Talk 17:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

:*Comment: I just sent that one to Afd too: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethan Lovett. – ukexpat (talk) 18:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —TexasAndroid (talk) 19:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Keep - I cleaned up the article and made a 1st pass at adding references; he's a contract player on a notable American series, that should count for something. It's a relatively new stub, perhaps we can give it some time to develop? And not that the actor's notability can necessarily be asserted by the role, but the character himself has been recently established as the only son of two notable/famous characters from the series (I commented as much in that AfD).— TAnthony^Talk 19:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

:*Comment: Those references hardly amount to the "significant coverage" required, IMHO. Why should a "contract player on a notable American series" count for something? Should he get a free pass on the notability requirements? – ukexpat (talk) 19:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

:*The newly added references do not add significantly to the claim of notability. There is a biography on the website of his employer; which cannot be used to establish notability since it is not independent. There is an IMDB entry which amounts to nothing more than a bullet list of jobs held. There is a short interview with Soaps.com, which is about 10 lines long. I wouldn't call this substantial coverage. If there is nothing more than those three, I can see no way this article meets WP:N standards... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

:*comment -- "time to develop" sounds like another variation on :WP:UPANDCOMING. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

:*Comment - I'm not suggesting that we wait until he has more credits or is more famous, I'm just thinking that no one has yet looked for additional sources. The fact that he's a contract player on a series (rather than a guest star, etc) increases the likelihood of something existing. I have someone who amasses recent soap magazines, I'll ask there, and as the series has just established that the character is the child of notables, I expect further coverage. Obviously an AfD is a good way to ignite efforts to improve an article, I just hate to have article deleted quickly before possible avenues are explored.— TAnthony^Talk 21:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

::*You seem to be misunderstanding the nature of notability on Wikipedia. If you pull in 200 soap magazines discussing the character in great detail they're worth squat - why? Because they cover the character. It doesn't matter if it's the most important character to be seen in shitty soaps for over a decade, this is an article on the actor and it is direct coverage of the actor as the actor that counts. Soap magazines are very good for articles on the character, but not for articles on the actor. Ironholds (talk) 21:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

:::*I do understand WP:N, and I don't quite get your snarky attitude ... there's actually an interview with the actor in the Soap Opera Digest that's currently on the newsstands (June 2, 2009), and I've cited it in the article. Which was my point. I didn't create the article, I'm not a fan of the guy, and I don't know that the article will end up meeting the criteria of WP:ENT, but I find it exasperating when articles get rushed to deletion and editors like yourself get red in the face when challenged. We found several references in one day, it seems counterproductive to slash and burn now and ask questions later.— TAnthony^Talk 09:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

::*Likewise, we don't create articles for people hoping that someday sources will be found. After the sources are found, feel free to use them to recreate the article... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Delete -- fails WP:ENT. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 00:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Keep per improvements by User:TAnthony atfter nomination. As a recurring (45+ episodes) character on a soap opera which itself has an incredible fan base and cult following (no, I don't watch it), I can accept in good faith that he has the notability required per WP:GNG. Time to start digging through the soap opera digests. That they are not included yet is no reason to delete. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment - several references and some info asserting notability were added after May 27, 2009 (when the initial "Deletes" were recorded), so ... — TAnthony^Talk 04:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Keep - Several independent sources cover information on the actor including both soap opera press and mainstream entertainment press. Contrary to what Ironholds said above, the actor interviews from the magazines give information on the actor as well as the character, such as where Parsons was born, raised, and schooled, and what film roles he held. All of which is covered in the article. Rocksey (talk) 04:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 08:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

While I am aware that relisting in these circumstances is outwith the process at WP:RELIST, the consensus based on a !vote-count would be to delete the article, but there were several improvements during the AFD, which it would be unfair to ignore. Stifle (talk) 08:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Keep per expansion. Significant role on notable soap opera. Granite thump (talk) 18:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER which requires multiple notable roles. لenna vecia 19:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

:LOL, if we followed that one to the letter we would lose a lot of articles. Come on now.— TAnthony^Talk 16:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

::LOL. Good. The fewer poor-quality articles on non-notable people, the better. لenna vecia 18:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

: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.