Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Vaughan

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 redirect to List of Emmerdale characters (1990)#Michael Feldmann. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:03, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Vaughan

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

I had this tagged as a PROD which was subsequently removed by user:Necrothesp, who correctly pointed out that the criteria is WP:NACTOR. The assertion is that four years on a well known British soap opera qualifies for WP:N. My reading of NACTOR though says that multiple significant roles are required. Also there is only one source which fails WP:RS. A quick Google turned up no RS sources indicating anything about him. I don't think he meets WP:N right now. But if there is a consensus in favor of giving him a pass on the basis of his four year role in Emmerdale I will accept that. Ad Orientem (talk) 18:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Michael Feldmann. He hasn't had multiple significant roles, in fact he seems to have fallen back to complete obscurity after his appearances in Emmerdale. Sionk (talk) 04:03, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think that playing a single major role in a major British soap for four years does qualify for notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 4 years on a popular soap is more than enough. Szzuk (talk) 22:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK. But what about sources? Or are we just chucking RS and V? Right now this article doesn't meet the bare minimum standard of having at least one RS source for all BLPs. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are about 15 million Emmerdale viewers who will say "Oh I remember him". If you want to play at finding sources I'm not interested. Szzuk (talk) 11:24, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as an unsourced BLP. I have found a few trivial mentions of him (for instance, saying that he appeared on the programme), but nothing that is significant or comprehensive as required by the WP:GNG. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
- I would also not object to the Redirect option suggested below. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 11:33, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Emmerdale characters (1990)#Michael Feldmann. Not enough reliable sourcing to construct a BLP, just to establish the actor played a particular role, which is covered in the suggested target. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:33, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As far as I am able to tell the article fails WP:BLP and more specifically WP:NACTOR, WP:GNG, WP:RS and WP:V. I have not seen an argument for keeping it that doesn't boil down to WP:IAR. While I am prepared in some cases to overlook some minor deficiencies in criteria for inclusion, chucking all of our standards for someone who hasn't shown up on any RS sources or as far as we know had any meaningful roles before or since the one mentioned, is a bridge too far for me. I reaffirm my delete vote. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with a redirect as suggested by many of the other editors. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Emmerdale characters (1990)#Michael Feldmann per comments above for redirect. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 18:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Emmerdale characters (1990)#Michael Feldmann. Sources haven't been found that would allow him to pass the notability guidelines. Since he seems to be primarily known for playing one role, having a redirect to that role seems like it would be appropriate. Calathan (talk) 21:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or, failing that, delete. Per apparent lack of reliable sources to support a BLP. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect. No reliable sources to support an article. Hot Stop talk-contribs 02:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are sources which meet WP:V (see my comments at the DRV) but WP:N is a long ways off from what I can find. So redirect is the right outcome. I'm fine with the suggested target. Hobit (talk) 16:11, 4 April 2014 (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.