Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darren Dunstan

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 no consensus. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:08, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Dunstan

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

primary source production website of a series he acted in, the self-published acting résumé of somebody else, and an entry in an IMDB-like directory that indiscriminately includes all voice actors whether they clear our notability standards or not. None of these are notability-supporting sources, and nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have notability-supporting sources. Bearcat (talk) 14:45, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:45, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:45, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:27, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:28, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable voice actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:55, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: There really is very little coverage on the subject, despite a formidable body of work. I hope someone can locate some reliable sources, because someone with so many credits under his belt deserves an article, in my opinion. Given that I am conflicted over this, I am voting "Weak Keep". Dflaw4 (talk) 12:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
People don't "deserve" articles just for having acting credits — every actor has always had acting credits, because they wouldn't be actors if they hadn't acted, so if that were how it worked then every actor who exists would always get a free pass over NACTOR. People get articles by having the reliable source coverage you admit that you can't find, and are not exempted from having to have reliable source coverage just because the article says stuff. Bearcat (talk) 03:46, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- This actor has done literally hundreds of episodes of various popular animated shows,
  WP:GNG is a separate issue, and I hope others can find more coverage than what I found. If not, I will consider updating my vote. However, there is already a "Delete" vote, and other editors are free to disagree with me and vote to "Delete", too. Dflaw4 (talk) 06:38, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  - A person doesn't pass NACTOR just by having roles — a person passes NACTOR by having GNG-worthy coverage about their performances to demonstrate that the roles were "significant" enough to count as NACTOR-passing roles. If all you had to do to get an actor over NACTOR was list roles, and sources weren't necessary, then every actor who exists would always automatically pass NACTOR, and the entire concept of having any notability standards for actors at all would be dead. Bearcat (talk) 15:33, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Bearcat, I don't think that is true. Not every significant character in every notable production gets GNG-worthy coverage. Those roles can still go towards NACTOR, though. Dflaw4 (talk) 09:11, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say every role in every production gets that kind of coverage. But the actor still has to have some evidence of it before he passes NACTOR, because as I said before, if all you had to do to get an actor over NACTOR was list roles, and sources weren't necessary, then every actor who exists would always automatically pass NACTOR, and the entire concept of having any notability standards for actors at all would be dead. Bearcat (talk) 12:16, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Bearcat, I'm afraid I still don't agree with your thoughts on NACTOR. Thank you for your responses, though. Dflaw4 (talk) 12:24, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't matter whether you agree with my "thoughts" or not: I'm not articulating a personal opinion, I'm simply summarizing the long-established sitewide consensus around how NACTOR works, and have not expressed even one word of personal opinion. Bearcat (talk) 19:30, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Bearcat, I'm happy to continue chatting to you, but I don't want to clutter up this AfD. If you'd like to, you can contact me at my talk page. Thanks, Dflaw4 (talk) 03:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 06:01, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 04:39, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards a Weak Keep based on the article. KartikeyaS (talk) 07:34, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This needs work, but I believe
WP:NACTOR is satisfied. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 01:24, 05 April 2020 (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.