Content deleted Content added
CiphriusKane (talk | contribs) |
→Stephen Hogan: Reply Tag: Reply |
||
Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
*:The canvassing article says, "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve [[wikipedia:CON|consensus]]." Why do you keep taking things out of context and not assume good faith? Aren't you behaving like a persecutor again? Even nominating [[Kingdom of Dust: Beheading of Adam Smith]] for deletion too? History will remember this. Thanks. [[User:Supermann|Supermann]] ([[User talk:Supermann|talk]]) 13:32, 7 November 2021 (UTC) |
*:The canvassing article says, "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve [[wikipedia:CON|consensus]]." Why do you keep taking things out of context and not assume good faith? Aren't you behaving like a persecutor again? Even nominating [[Kingdom of Dust: Beheading of Adam Smith]] for deletion too? History will remember this. Thanks. [[User:Supermann|Supermann]] ([[User talk:Supermann|talk]]) 13:32, 7 November 2021 (UTC) |
||
:::"If I think someone is '''misreading''' the Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Entertainers, what can I do?" The canvassing article also labels the following as inappropriate: "Campaigning: Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner." The section title is clearly loaded due to non-neutral language. As for the deletion nomination, that should be addressed on the AfD page. Also, please rescind your accusations of bad faith and persecution. It's getting quite tiresome seeing these cries whenever somebody disagrees with you [[User:CiphriusKane|CiphriusKane]] ([[User talk:CiphriusKane|talk]]) 14:54, 7 November 2021 (UTC) |
:::"If I think someone is '''misreading''' the Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Entertainers, what can I do?" The canvassing article also labels the following as inappropriate: "Campaigning: Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner." The section title is clearly loaded due to non-neutral language. As for the deletion nomination, that should be addressed on the AfD page. Also, please rescind your accusations of bad faith and persecution. It's getting quite tiresome seeing these cries whenever somebody disagrees with you [[User:CiphriusKane|CiphriusKane]] ([[User talk:CiphriusKane|talk]]) 14:54, 7 November 2021 (UTC) |
||
::::I have revised it and am sorry that it was not neutral enough for you. I apologize. [[User:Supermann|Supermann]] ([[User talk:Supermann|talk]]) 16:44, 7 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*Delete was a reasonable close of the AfD, relisting would also have been reasonable and I suppose we could do that here. [[WP:ENTERTAINER]] isn't a guarantee that the subject is notable, even if the subject does meet it. It's an indication that the subject is ''likely'' to be notable, and subjects are still expected to meet [[WP:GNG]]. The deleted article cited a very large number of references (63 footnotes), however almost all of them merely confirm that he appeared in some role and aren't significant coverage. The only two I can see which might be exceptions are [https://www.dublinlive.ie/whats-on/dublin-actor-stars-fascinating-new-21993385] and [https://archive.md/CVj91]. The former is essentially an interview with the subject about a film he starred in and the latter has a couple of paragraphs about his audio work. I don't think it's out of line for people to conclude that these don't meet the GNG. '''''[[User:Hut 8.5|<span style="color:#b50000;">Hut 8.5</span>]]''''' 11:19, 7 November 2021 (UTC) |
*Delete was a reasonable close of the AfD, relisting would also have been reasonable and I suppose we could do that here. [[WP:ENTERTAINER]] isn't a guarantee that the subject is notable, even if the subject does meet it. It's an indication that the subject is ''likely'' to be notable, and subjects are still expected to meet [[WP:GNG]]. The deleted article cited a very large number of references (63 footnotes), however almost all of them merely confirm that he appeared in some role and aren't significant coverage. The only two I can see which might be exceptions are [https://www.dublinlive.ie/whats-on/dublin-actor-stars-fascinating-new-21993385] and [https://archive.md/CVj91]. The former is essentially an interview with the subject about a film he starred in and the latter has a couple of paragraphs about his audio work. I don't think it's out of line for people to conclude that these don't meet the GNG. '''''[[User:Hut 8.5|<span style="color:#b50000;">Hut 8.5</span>]]''''' 11:19, 7 November 2021 (UTC) |
||
*'''Endorse''' - No error by the closer, and no error claimed in the appeal. The appellant [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT|doesn't like]] the consensus. This isn't a rehash. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 14:41, 7 November 2021 (UTC) |
*'''Endorse''' - No error by the closer, and no error claimed in the appeal. The appellant [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT|doesn't like]] the consensus. This isn't a rehash. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 14:41, 7 November 2021 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:44, 7 November 2021
6 November 2021
Stephen Hogan
- Stephen Hogan (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
I do believe he is notable enough per Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Entertainers, if not borderline notable per one editor who had shown me the light throughout the editing process. Thanks. Supermann (talk) 03:45, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment - I believe I am the "one editor" Supermann was referring to, as I had a hand in editing the article as well. I'm unsurprised the AfD happened or the outcome of it. In my opinion, Hogan has some minor notability as an audiobook narrator (there was a Times article on Irish audiobook narrators that dedicated several paragraphs to him), but at best would be a case of WP:TOOSOON. The AfD discussion failed to mention that the article was rejected at AfC due to the creator repeatedly submitting the draft without sufficiently addressing concerns and repeatedly putting forward the reviews mentioned in the AfD rational as the "three best sources", a decision I agreed with at the time (the creator later moved it to the mainspace after being told it was allowed). I also have reservations on the Dublin Live article, because while Hogan had a large role in the article, he is not the focus of the article CiphriusKane (talk) 05:19, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- Yes you are one of the two editors, though I still respectfully disagree you applied "too soon" for him, when we can easily verify his many memorable roles/on-screen credits after 20 years, as long as we are willing. Have you finished The Tudors where his head as that of Henry Norris (courtier) got chopped off? The Dublin article was more about Sardar Udham, but we also got to learn about his world view as an Irish. I wouldn't have known about Jallianwala Bagh massacre, had it not been the movie. And I do agree his role in that film is much less than those of Starship Troopers 3: Marauder and Kingdom of Dust: Beheading of Adam Smith. Had his role performed enhanced interrogation techniques on Udham Singh during the investigation or he played the role of the villain massacring the Indians, then I agree it would have been a more significant role. Needless to say, I appreciate your criticism. Supermann (talk) 16:44, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- I rarely watch TV and films these days, and I said WP:TOOSOON on the basis that there was potential that Hogan would have a more notable role in the future. That is all I am going to say on the topic CiphriusKane (talk) 04:39, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment (as closer): DRV is not for re-litigating a process which disappoints. User:Supermann seems determined to put this subject into mainspace despite being told several times during AFC that the article lacks sufficient reliable sources to meet general notability requirements. In the AFD, User:Drmies and User:TheBirdsShedTears appear to agree with nominator User:DGG subject fails WP:NACTOR and GNG. In the discussion, only Supermann holds for inclusion. Some socking during the process did not affect the outcome. The RS Times article mentioned by User:CiphriusKane is a series of interviews with various actors who've been performing audiobook readings during the pandemic. I personally did a BEFORE to verify applied sources and look for new ones. I believe an article for the subject could be created (and I would not object if the the article was successfully passed at AFC), but would need substantially better anchoring sources, which I could not find but might still be produced. The subject seems a fine working actor with credits in films, TV, theater and now audiobook narrator (the field where I think it's most likely to find RS). It gave me no pleasure to delete the page, but felt unable to support keep myself (or I would have contributed to the discussion). BusterD (talk) 10:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for tagging me, BusterD, and for properly deleting the article. If an AfD goes 2 to 1 (3 to 1 including the nominator), one can have doubts, relist, etc. or even close as "keep" or "no consensus", based on the arguments put forward. The problem is that Supermann's argument (and I'm skipping over their weird opening sentences) basically boils down to "he was in movies and he's notable". Yes, there was a sock (a funny one), but that doesn't affect the outcome. The AfD was decided properly. Drmies (talk) 14:59, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- My argument was funny because I have only seen some of his movies and TV shows, but not ALL, and certainly not any of his audiobooks and theaters works and game voiceover. If it was up to me, I would have stopped the editing at just those two former genres, but then editors kept wanting more. In turn, it's the theaters works and maybe audiobooks that have convinced notability, though I still prefer movies and TV shows, because they are at our fingertips. I didn't make my argument lengthy at the time, because I presumed people would have read all the argument on the talk page or my talk page by now, but maybe they didn't. And I am sorry that my experience is still junior to everyone here that I simply can't write to convince otherwise. Supermann (talk) 16:32, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Supermann, I think you should read guide to declaring conflict of interest for future references than showing interest in a non-notable subject. The subject in question is a non-notable actor and is currently not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. If you still think it passes notability guidelines, you may create a draft and submit it for AfC review. However, if you recreate this in mainspace by yourself, it is likely to be speedy deleted under WP:G4. Dublin Live article popped up a day after the subject was taken to AfD, therefore, it is not considered as an independent and reliable source. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 15:18, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
But before you create a draft, please make sure you post all discussions, including AfD as well as this one on draft's talk page. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 15:21, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- I read that COI guideline and there is simply none whatsoever. I am just a tax accountant based in NYC. The article was cut down to bare minimum without any fluff by page reviewers after lengthy discussions. You are saying he made a mistake. I can't remember who that reviewer is. Hogan has 2 significant roles based on his lines in the movies Starship Troopers 3: Marauder and Kingdom of Dust: Beheading of Adam Smith that any of us can see with our own eyes, if we are willing to do so. I bet you still haven't seen any of them. And 3 other significant roles in theaters that I guess none of us could witness but have to rely on media reports. The Dublin article popped up because there have been keen interests in the importance of the movie Sardar Udham that ultimately failed India's internal nomination for the 94th Oscars. All of these movies are important subjects in human's history. There is no way that Dublin article was coordinated with me. Have you even seen that movie that is about the aftermath from Jallianwala Bagh massacre? People constantly talk about Wikipedia:Assume good faith, but you have afforded me with nothing but extreme level of skepticism, while those sock puppets User:Nyxaros2 kept vandalizing everywhere under your nose. I understand you are not admin, but I think it's time you refocus where the enforcement should truly lie and let readers have access to the knowledge which is why I joined Wikipedia and decided to give back. I have never deleted any article, because knowledge is power. I just don't appreciate how a simple article of his can bring down the entire quality of Wikipedia? I am not saying he is as notable as Liam Neeson, Colin Farrell, Pierce Brosnan, but come on, after such a lengthy filmography. I respectfully just disagree with your observation. And I apologize in advance if you find me disrespectful. I am sorry. Supermann (talk) 16:22, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- I see your comments on AfD and here too. Please read WP:CIV, one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. Here on Wikipedia, we do not determine notability by watching a film, but we look into reliable sources. Sockpuppetry has nothing to do with notability as well as AfD outcome. I suggest to maintain civility and assume good faith while commenting on a specific topic. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 16:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Also, notability is demonstrated by reliable sources (independent of the subject). Presenting opinions and personal views do not override notability guidelines. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 16:35, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- But you are overriding them with your own read on the guidelines which is not the way I read it: Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; or Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. Maybe I have reading comprehension issues, since English is not my first language, yet I am still contributing. And one of the five pillars also says, "Wikipedia has no firm rules." How do we reconcile with that? Thanks. Supermann (talk) 16:49, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- You may keep presenting your opinions. This subject fails WP:NACTOR and may take some time to meet our notability guidelines. The present sources are insufficient to fulfill notability criteria. Also, Dublin article seems insufficient for satisfying verifiability as well as notability. Regards TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 18:06, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment - Supermann posted this message to the WP:NPEOPLE talk page. I believe this is a violation of WP:CANVASS as it's clearly trying to push a POV (that we're massively misinterpreting the notability requirements here, a common theme regarding their behaviour towards the article) CiphriusKane (talk) 04:39, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- The canvassing article says, "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." Why do you keep taking things out of context and not assume good faith? Aren't you behaving like a persecutor again? Even nominating Kingdom of Dust: Beheading of Adam Smith for deletion too? History will remember this. Thanks. Supermann (talk) 13:32, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- "If I think someone is misreading the Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Entertainers, what can I do?" The canvassing article also labels the following as inappropriate: "Campaigning: Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner." The section title is clearly loaded due to non-neutral language. As for the deletion nomination, that should be addressed on the AfD page. Also, please rescind your accusations of bad faith and persecution. It's getting quite tiresome seeing these cries whenever somebody disagrees with you CiphriusKane (talk) 14:54, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- Delete was a reasonable close of the AfD, relisting would also have been reasonable and I suppose we could do that here. WP:ENTERTAINER isn't a guarantee that the subject is notable, even if the subject does meet it. It's an indication that the subject is likely to be notable, and subjects are still expected to meet WP:GNG. The deleted article cited a very large number of references (63 footnotes), however almost all of them merely confirm that he appeared in some role and aren't significant coverage. The only two I can see which might be exceptions are [1] and [2]. The former is essentially an interview with the subject about a film he starred in and the latter has a couple of paragraphs about his audio work. I don't think it's out of line for people to conclude that these don't meet the GNG. Hut 8.5 11:19, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- Endorse - No error by the closer, and no error claimed in the appeal. The appellant doesn't like the consensus. This isn't a rehash. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:41, 7 November 2021 (UTC)