Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brandon Ratcliff
Source: 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 redirect to Me and You and Everyone We Know. J04n(talk page) 11:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Brandon Ratcliff
The only source given is the IMDb page of the subject. Even browsing the IMDb page, the subject doesn't even have anything there that would make looking for reliable sources worth while. Ratcliff has only done a handfull of independent films. He has had a couple "extra" roles in a couple T.V. series, mostly if not all uncredited. Aaron Booth (talk) 01:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no ]
- Relistedto generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: To respectfully disagree with his brother-in-law or cousin or various animals also having IMDB listings, as we do not judge any actor's notability by the least of any of their works but instead by their best, and the coverage of those best as found through searches. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the sources that were linked in the above google search link appears mainly to be passing mentions, and the award (Chlotrudis Award) appears to be a local award and isn't the same as being nominated (or being awarded) for an local Emmy, or awarded a Purple Heart, would be notable, which past consensus over multiple AfDs inform us that they are not.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "1.Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." No
- "2.Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." Nope
- "3.Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. Again, no.
- The award he won was questionably notable award for independent film. This award is not "a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times. Nor has he made "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." even in regards to the award. Much of the coverage in the sources that can be found are trivial coverage of the subject, basically a handful of passing mentions. -Aaron Booth (talk) 04:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the sources that were linked in the above google search link appears mainly to be passing mentions, and the award (Chlotrudis Award) appears to be a local award and isn't the same as being nominated (or being awarded) for an
- Relistedto generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect for now to WP:GNG) for determining whether an award is notable or not. Simply put, and per existing Wikipedia standards, this actor is close but not quite there yet as far as notability is concerned. Allow undeletion or recreation once it is. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- (WP:NOTFILM). Let me explain, Roger Ebert gives the subject two paragraphs, but nothing further. No other reliable source gives the subject significant coverage as presently provided in the article; sure there are brief mentions, but outside of reviews not much else.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- IF this indivdual had recognition (not simply verifiability) for something other than his role in Justin Beeber, he certainly has more "notability" than any unknown-and-never-heard-of actor. Notability is not a matter of degrees. He either has it or he does not. Unless stopped by death or retirement, an actor's career rarely ceases... specially when he has already received peer recognition. That I think he might be slowly approaching ENT and have Wikipedia notability in the future is not an assertion that he already has. We can wait until notability is a more certain lock before allowing an article. (I like the use of color in responses as started her by the nominator) Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:31, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- IF this indivdual had recognition (not simply verifiability) for something other than his role in
- (
What matters here is whether or not he meets ENT. The point that he may at some point meet criterion is an example of
WP:NYA. He received one small award for a supporting role in one independent film. Most of what can be found out there as to establish ENT and verifiability just seem to be small passing references, and very little is said aside from actor "x" is playing role "y" or a similar statement. While at some point if he continues in his career he may meet ENT, he fails all three criteria. That being said, I agree that redirecting to Me and You and Everyone We Know until he meets ENT, if that time does in fact arrive. -Aaron Booth (talk) 01:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
- Good enough. Thank you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:14, 16 March 2013 (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.