Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fox Jackson-Keen

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. Listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Kudos to MQS for sourcing this BLP. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fox Jackson-Keen

edit
Fox Jackson-Keen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Performer who has had one significant role, no fan base, no unique or innovative contributions, thus fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Apparently appeared at UK National Gymnastics Championships, but no medals or Olympic participation so fails WP:ATHLETE#Gymnastics Jezhotwells (talk) 16:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Twinkle seems to have failed on this one. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Normally, I would say that one stage role other than the première isn't enough. However, Billy Elliott the Musical is one of the most well-known and successful musicals currently running in the West End, he got a reasonable amount of coverage in GNews for this, and he appears to be the first UK actor to play the titular role, and that just pushes it over the bar for me. If keep is not an option I suggest a redirect to Billy Elliot the Musical casts#Billy Elliott. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? First UK actor? Last time I looked at an atlas the North East of England was considered to be part of the UK. He is apparently the first Londoner to play the role. That is not particularly notable. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but we are looking for substantive coverage rather than announcements of joining the cast and rehashed press releases. As I noted above he clearly fails to meet the criteria of WP:ENTERTAINER. Perhaps when he grows up and undertakes other roles he will prove to have some notability, but being one of just 20+ child actors who have appeared in a role in one London theatre is not enough. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As I noted above, three or four child actors play the title role at any one time (giving two or three performances per week), as the law forbids their over exploitation. The actors who played the title role in the première production were Liam Mower, James Lomas, George Maguire. Since then sixteeen others have taken this role in London, there are also productions on Broadway, Australia, Seoul, and there has been one US tour, soon to be another. Altogether at least 50 child actors have taken the role. Are you suggesting that all of these, including those who have had no other significant acting roles should have Wikipedia articles? I have checked out sourcing, one minor role in a television production of Hogfather and a few TV appearances promoting the musical. The GNews hits mentioned above are nearly all nnouncements of his casting. A few interviews, not substantial coverage. That is it and it does not confer the notability required by WP:ENTERTAINER. Maybe in a few years' time when he has grown up, been to college and starts taking other roles (if he stays in the acting profession), which may not happen, then he might gain some sort of notability - at present no. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Significant and substantial are not the same thing. Per WP:GNG, what is required is that the sources address the subject directly and in detail in a more-than-trivial fashion, and clarifies that the subject in question need not be the main foucus of the source's topic. Any actor is quite lucky to receive even two or three sentences in context to his performance a review that otherwise concerntrates on plot and theme and director and lighting, etc.... and his being determined notable enough to be interviewed for his by reliable sources is quite telling... specially for theater. That others might have performed a role maters not, as long as the subject himself has received the individual coverage for his own unique and individual contribution(s) to the role(s). If others in this role also have significant coverage, they might yes, merit articles as well... but with respects, this discussion is not about other unwritten articles... it's only about this one person, and the notability his has achieved for his own contributions... not unwritten contributions of any others, and the sources so far offered can lead one to a reasonable presumption that more sources exist, and that the project will benefit by this article remaining and be further improved over time and through regular editing. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let's look at the guideline WP:ENTERTAINER.

Actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities:

  1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.
    No, one role only.
  2. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
    No evidence of this.
  3. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.
    No evidence of this.

Thus the article subject fails the guideline. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I note further that of the ten references given above by Eudemis, five are mirrors of each other, actually mentioning that another boy had joined the cast, two which are mirors of each other announce that he is from London, the rest are just one line mentions, neither substantial nor significant. Oh, and it appears that 33 boys have now played the role in London. As to the interviews, all of the boys are regularly wheeled out for one or two minute spots on breakfast television by the show's marketing team. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your points, while nicely presented, tend to forget the forest while trying to fell a single tree. When a stage actor recieves coverage for his unique contribution to a role... it does not matter to Wikipedia that 10 or 50 or a thousand others might have performed that same role in other places or at other times. It is by an actor's own recognized individual contribution that notability may be determined. So, if or when articles appear on other young actors, we can judge those at that time.... but until that time, it remains a WP:WAX argument to speculate upon what does not exist, as we are here to judge this ONE... and not articles not yet written.
And your comments above toward "one role only", as if that was all he ever did in his entire young life, seems to forget that the individual has indeed done more than just the one stage role... his having been on several notable television programs... and his having competed in the UK National Gymnastics finals. Is his competing 4 times in those gymnastic finals a consideration? Did he win an award, or any recognition for his participation?
He won no medals, competed at junior level, fails WP:ATHLETE#Gymnastics. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. So we need not worry about WP:ATH. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Was his role as Young Albert in Hogfather significant? Was the character key to the plot, or simply a throw-away? Was his character of Jamie Parks in his single appearnce in an episode of The Bill a significant role in that episode? Was "Jamie Parks" not key to plot or storyline?
Both minor roles, just a few lines. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Consideration of what comprises a significant contribution is based upon importance to storyline and plot. We do not count "lines" to determine if a role or character is significant to a storyline... specially as there are unarguably significant roles in certain notable works where the actor has no lines whatsoever. And it's not as if these roles were descriptives such as "boy number 2", or "schoolyard bully". They were named roles for this actor. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is it of note that his work was considered by UK television to be enough worth discussing that he was interviewed in 2008 on both This Morning and What's on Theatre... and again in 2010 (well past his stage days) on The Alan Titchmarsh Show? Wow. An actor being interviewed on talk shows about his roles. Not so strange... as that IS what such shows do. And it does not matter if an actor is 12 or 72... as an interview is an interview.
A couple of minutes in each interview, with lengthier excerpts from the show. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even a governor might get only a very few minutes on a talk show, if the show's format is set to share multiple interviews over a restrictive show length. I am reminded of such notable shows as The Tonight Show and Late Show with David Letterman... where a star might make a guest appearance, answer questions for a few minutes, share excerpts of an upcoming film, and then depart. Such format does not make the star's appearance of less note. It is in being asked to appear that is the key. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And too, their production departments have guest criteria that must be met... such as a guest being of enough interest to the viewing audience so that they might watch... and so have a viewership that attracts the sponsors who pay for commercial time during the show's timeslot... sponsors who would not pay if audiences did not tune in. It is commercial televison after all... and a show that does not give the viewers what they want to see, soon gets cancelled.
One must use criteria sagely, and not as a bludgeon... and one must not look so hard at one thing that the overall picture is forgotten, as we Wikipedians should best determine an overall notability, even if minor, based upon an overall career... and not one thing taken out of context. Well... I may not have convinced you... but I have convinced myself. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we can agree to disagree. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. And it is through this discussion that I have convinced myself. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would help if someone cared to add some RS. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Will be getting to it myself, as it does need to be done. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:24, 16 August 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fox_Jackson-Keen&oldid=1080168295"