Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josef Altin
Appearance
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 keep. (
]Josef Altin
- Josef Altin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This
WP:BLP cites not one reliable source. A Google search finds no immediately available appropriate sources. Sandstein 14:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
- Comment The subject is mentioned in a handful of Guardian theatre reviews, but none of these appear to be major roles; he does also get mentioned in The Independent review of "The Empire" where he had a larger role. AllyD (talk) 21:46, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Rather prolific UK television actor. I did a search for his name and Wikipedia came up first. And then I found this deletion discussion. His being cast in Game of Thrones has resulted in its own significant fan base as well. Make an effort to get better sources. There's quite probably industry material out there that's not online. --Bastique ☎ call me! 00:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Probably" isn't good enough. If you want to keep the article, you must look for and cite such sources, see WP:BURDEN. Without reliable sources, we must not keep a biography of a living person. Sandstein 03:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to misunderstand what I've typed. I'm not arguing your rationale for the need for reliable sources. I'm not arguing with you at all. I don't even "want" to keep this article. I'm stating a fact that he passes the threshold of being notable and his biography deserves to be on Wikipedia. That means it's worth someone who is an active editor making the effort to look for reliable sources that almost certainly exist. That is also to say that I have no stake in keeping this article, so I don't care what the end result is. I'm not a very active editor any longer in the first place. And I am not going to go through the effort to find it myself. But anyone who discovers this page will know precisely what to do rather than going through the Brobdingnagian task of trying to understand Wikipedia policies or find themselves arguing with you when they don't have to. --Bastique ☎ call me! 04:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Probably" isn't good enough. If you want to keep the article, you must look for and cite such sources, see
- Keep basic notability per the guideline WP:NACTOR, 48 roles over 14 year career, inculding same roll multiple times over 2 seasons on long term TV series The Bill, then there's pictured. Gnangarra 05:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relistedto generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Nothing but passing mentions. No indepth coverage of this individual.Curb Chain (talk) 02:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relistedto generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Even if not a winner, a confirm various aspects of the article, then fine... we use them. While SIGCOV is wonderful, it is not the sole means by which we can determine if someone is notable enough to be included herein. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Easily notable enough by virtue of the range of verifiable work in TV and West End. Reviews in The Stage and The Independent. Game of Thrones clinches it, but even without that I would keep. Mcewan (talk) 08:34, 15 January 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.