Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Max Ehrich
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 keep. Skomorokh 21:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Max Ehrich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
He has had only one starring role and all that I can find is trivial mentions. Fails WP:ENT. Joe Chill (talk) 14:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. One starring role in a film, one recurring role in a network TV show, reported by the New York Times as a "principal dancer" in another film. That meets the "multiple" requirement of WP:ENT for me. An inch over the line is as good as a mile. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Two episodes is not a recurring role and being a main dancer does not show notability because it is a minor role also. He was only a background dancer and not a main character. And the movie most likely isn't notable. The major roles in WP:ENT require them to be in notable films. Joe Chill (talk) 20:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Theleftorium 18:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Only one significant role in a film few have apparently seen (13 votes is very very low for IMDb) and not much notice from the press. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep WP:GNG is the governing inclusion criteria. If it can be seen that Max has enough significant coverage to pass WP:GNG, any perceived failure to meet WP:ENT does not matter. So my initial search found The Insider, New York Times, and Living Media?. Tough call for such a short career, but I'd rather err on the side of caution in this instance. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 23:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The first link is submitted by a user of the site and the second one is a trivial mention. WP:GNG is a part of WP:ENT so it fails both. How is one source with significant coverage enough? Joe Chill (talk) 00:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ENT is a subordinant criteria of WP:BIO which is itself a subordinant criteria of WP:N / WP:GNG. Each of the subordinant notability guidelines always refers back to the governing WP:N. And to repeat for clarity's sake... WP:GNG is the governing inclusion criteria. If it can be seen that Max has enough significant coverage to pass WP:GNG, any perceived failure to meet WP:ENT does not matter. If an editor does not believe the coverages in Providence Journal, The Gazette, News Transcript, Living Media, et.al. just barely sneaking up on meeting the WP:GNG, that's an opinion to which they are welcome. I believe that the article topic is (just barely) notable, and I believe that the article itself will continue to grow and be improved as WP:DEADLINE allows. Its a squeeker... but again, amd since we're allowed to consider all aspects in context to the sitiation, I'd rather err on the side of caution in this instance. (And PS... the New York Times article gives him a short paragraph and quotes him. It isn't grandiose, but being quoted in the Times is not exactly trivial IMHO) MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You didn't need to explain the WP:ENT and WP:GNG thing. I always knew that. It was unnecessary for me to bring up WP:N in my nomination because WP:BIO (which ENT is a part of) mentions it. I thought that saying WP:GNG is a part of WP:ENT would stop more pointless explanations. You explaining that was very annoying. Joe Chill (talk) 20:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Then suffice it to say that I believe he (barely) squeeks by the various relevent notability guidelines, and accept that you do not. We can then agree to disagree and move on. Best, MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 21:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You didn't need to explain the WP:ENT and WP:GNG thing. I always knew that. It was unnecessary for me to bring up WP:N in my nomination because WP:BIO (which ENT is a part of) mentions it. I thought that saying WP:GNG is a part of WP:ENT would stop more pointless explanations. You explaining that was very annoying. Joe Chill (talk) 20:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ENT is a subordinant criteria of WP:BIO which is itself a subordinant criteria of WP:N / WP:GNG. Each of the subordinant notability guidelines always refers back to the governing WP:N. And to repeat for clarity's sake... WP:GNG is the governing inclusion criteria. If it can be seen that Max has enough significant coverage to pass WP:GNG, any perceived failure to meet WP:ENT does not matter. If an editor does not believe the coverages in Providence Journal, The Gazette, News Transcript, Living Media, et.al. just barely sneaking up on meeting the WP:GNG, that's an opinion to which they are welcome. I believe that the article topic is (just barely) notable, and I believe that the article itself will continue to grow and be improved as WP:DEADLINE allows. Its a squeeker... but again, amd since we're allowed to consider all aspects in context to the sitiation, I'd rather err on the side of caution in this instance. (And PS... the New York Times article gives him a short paragraph and quotes him. It isn't grandiose, but being quoted in the Times is not exactly trivial IMHO) MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The first link is submitted by a user of the site and the second one is a trivial mention. WP:GNG is a part of WP:ENT so it fails both. How is one source with significant coverage enough? Joe Chill (talk) 00:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk) · @737 · 16:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep WP:BIO is met by these two in-depth articles about him. Whether or not he passes WP:ENT is irrelevant because the fact that he passes WP:BIO means that he should have an article on Wikipedia. Cunard (talk) 17:35, 12 August 2009 (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.