Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Fletcher (actor)
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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Edward Fletcher (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested prod. As actor, his roles seem to be few and relatively minor to me, as painter I could not find independent sources, and none are given in the article. Pgallert (talk) 09:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I was the first PRODer. The subject is certainly not notable in terms of his acting career. On his website, his last scheduled art shows (under events) appear to be more than a year ago, and his work wasn't the sole attraction. However, he claims on his website that his works "have been featured in solo and group exhibitions." I tried finding independent sources that demonstrate his notability in terms of his painting career, with little luck. I found this website, but from what I can gather it's a place he rents space to sell his art. Overall I think he fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines. PDCook (talk) 14:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This article should not be deleted: even if his roles are "few and minor" he can still be notable. Also "few and minor" is a subjective assessment. Even if he rents his space to sell his art, it could still be seen as a (solo and group) exhibition of his art, which could lead to notability. (Bgeelhoed (talk) 14:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- I have not seen any evidence of notability so far. There are specific guidelines here, namely WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. If you can find WP:Reliable sources that demonstrate such notability, then please present them and I will certainly reconsider. PDCook (talk) 15:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not intending to badger but with regards to painters the policy is pretty explicit: "is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries". This is not claimed by the article, never mind backed up by independent sources. Also, "few and minor" normally means: not notable. --Pgallert (talk) 06:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But whether or not something is "few and minor" is a subjective assessment (Bgeelhoed (talk) 11:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)).[reply]
- Agreed for the word "minor". I wouldn't know of many people who would object to the usage of "few" for something that occurred twice in 17 years of professional life. --Pgallert (talk) 13:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But I wrote "few and minor" is a subjective assessment, not that "few and minor" are subjective assessments. :) (Bgeelhoed (talk) 22:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. He does not meet the most basic criteria of WP:BIO, and he's nowhere near WP:ENT or WP:CREATIVE. Unless there is a plethora of sources that have not seen the light of google (which I seriously doubt), he's got to go. Wine Guy Talk 06:44, 26 January 2010 (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.