Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel da Silva (actor)

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 delete. Consensus is that the subject has not yet reached the inclusion threshold. Mojo Hand (talk) 19:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel da Silva (actor)

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

Blatantly non-notable. The only thing approaching a reference does not mention the subject. Benboy00 (talk) 00:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NACTOR. Only a handful of small roles, all in non-notable films. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 07:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An IMDB reference was recently added, but as everyone knows, IMDB is editable by users, as mentioned in this essay (and somewhere in WP:RELY). I suspect that this does not meet the standards of WP:NOTABILITY, but I leave that judgement to other users. A google search of: ""Daniel da Silva"" actor" returns only 1 non-user generated result on the first page, which is an advert for one of the films he is in (not sure if that's relevant or not). I think there is also likely to be some confusion due to the abundance of people named "da Silva". Benboy00 (talk) 16:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am the article's creator. Simply put, this is an artist who is producing work. The essay mentioned above by Benboy00 states that, particularly "If an actor manages to maintain a low profile and so fails WP:GNG by not having wide coverage in popular press that is readily available though an internet search, that "low profile" and failing GNG does not exclude him as long as the career is itself properly verified in reliable sources...specially as guideline well acknowledges that not everything that is notable makes headlines, and not everything that is notable is easily searchable online." ALSO WP:Notability (people), particularly "For Wikipedia:Notability (people), the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" – that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"[1] within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being "famous" or "popular" – although not irrelevant – is secondary." and ultimately WP: Verifiability states that, "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors." Agreed with Benboy00's google search results of "Daniel da Silva" "actor" with the inclusion of images from productions. I searched the artist's projects and found timely newsworthy results - a successful post-production crowdsourcing campaign on Kickstarter with $45,525.00 raised by 244 supporters for his film, American Mongrel; and Collapse is having its North American premiere at the California Film Institute's 36th Mill Valley Film Festival in October. For certain, "notable" enough to warrant an article and I will continue to work on improving this article. Thank you! Innererklang (talk) 20:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hi Innererklang, thank you for your contributions to wikipedia. This should really be put on your talk page, but as it relates to the article, I thought I should put it here. I understand what you're saying, but unfortunately wikipedia can not (and, in my opinion, should not) document all people, whether they be artists, scientists, historians, or anything else. From what I can see, this actor, like many actors, is not, at the moment, "worthy of notice". This is not in any way a judgement of his talent, it is merely an observation. He may very well, in the future, become worthy of notice, but the fact remains that at the moment, the films he has been in are not notable. On a completely different note, this article is full of unsourced information (in fact, as there are no sources, the entire article is unsourced). This is technically grounds for deletion on its own with a BLPPROD notice, however as IMDB has been added to the page, even though not as a source, I think this technicality should probably be overlooked. HOWEVER, as noted in WP:BLP, wikipedia cannot host unsourced information in BLP's. It is for this reason that I will soon remove the unsourced information. This will leave the article as basically a description of three films, which is unlikely to pass muster. Please add some sources for the informaton if you can find some. I would do so myself, but I am not in the best position to do so at the moment. Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 21:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NACTOR. Barely mentioned in any sources. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 23:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I removed some information that wasnt even in IMDB, and removed a related category tag. This article is now basically a description of 3 pretty un-notable films. It has now been a week since nomination. The votes are 1 keep from the creator who thinks this person is notable, and 2 deletes from others based on lack of notability. It should perhaps be noted that the creator seems to be a single purpose account. Is there enough consensus to delete? Benboy00 (talk) 15:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be in a rush: AFD discussions run at least 7 days ... often longer. Remember too that it's not a vote. There's no need to rush anyone to close an AfD, ever ES &L 12:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While it is true that AfD's should not be rushed, it is also true that they shouldn't be unnecessarily prolonged. As far as I can tell, 7 days is not the minimum for AfD's (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_an_AfD_discussion_is_closed), it how long they are normally "allowed" to run. This suggests that 7 days is an upper limit, unless there is some reason to run them longer, such as no contributors or a lot of controversy. Neither of those seem true in this case, as the only defender is the creator, who in MY (possibly biased and/or flawed) opinion, does not raise any valid points, and who has not replied to my comment. Also, it has now been 8 days since the opening of this AfD. I am not in a rush, I am just trying to follow policy. Benboy00 (talk) 18:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, 7 days is typically the minimum (see the first paragraph of WP:AFD). In fact, an AFD does not come to the attention of administrators for closure until it has hit the 7 day mark. They can and often do go for a couple of weeks. Indeed, with so few lines of discussion here, many admins would "relist" it for another week, minimum in order to gain more discussion. ES &L 18:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am fully aware of the relist process, and if an admin feels that there has not been enough debate, then I would fully expect them to relist. However, while that paragraph does contain the phrase "at least", I believe that is in reference to the fact that the discussion can be relisted (see this and this (just before "withdrawing a nomination")). It does not mean that AfD's should be allowed to continue for more than 7 days without relisting, which can be thought of as an extension of the deadline for seven more days. I would request that an uninvolved admin now either close the AfD, or relist. Benboy00 (talk) 19:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Way, way too early to claim notability. Once he starts getting articles about him in Variety and The New York Times, he's due for an article on Wikipedia. Until then, he's going to have to make do with a blog and twitter account, like every other struggling actor. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:30, 19 September 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.