Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Tessier

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 no consensus. Sourcing appears to be borderline. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Tessier

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

A non notable character actor, with WP:BEFORE showing no evidence of substantial coverage Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Actors are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because it's possible to compile a list of their roles — and further, the vast majority of the roles listed here are supporting or guest appearances as minor characters, some of whom didn't even have names. So there are only a few roles here that might have been notable enough to count as "significant" for the purposes of WP:NACTOR — but even then, NACTOR still isn't passed just because such "possibly significant" roles appear in the list, and still requires a WP:GNG-worthy volume of reliable sources to demonstrate the significance of the roles by actually saying something substantive, above and beyond just the cast list, about him and his performances. No sources, no article. Bearcat (talk) 19:16, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete when the closest we get to a big time productions is the role "Muto's Crows nest tech #2" I think it is pretty safe to say we are dealing with a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I can't say I agree with John Pack Lambert's assessment of the subject's notability; he has had a number of significant roles in notable productions throughout his career (the part that John mentioned was one of his more minor ones). There are also several sources discussing the subject and his work: here, here, here and here. I therefore believe that the relevant notability standards are met. Dflaw4 (talk) 09:53, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having a small handful of "local kid does stuff" human interest coverage in his own hometown local newspaper is not in and of itself enough coverage to get a person over WP:GNG in the absence of any wider attention — and the only one of those four sources that is from anywhere extralocal just mentions his name without being about him or his character to any non-trivial degree. So no, that's not enough coverage to change the equation here. Bearcat (talk) 17:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat, there are more sources online. There is coverage—that is my point. Dflaw4 (talk) 00:10, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then show us the three best sources you're finding, not just three or four random weak ones. Bearcat (talk) 15:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to be brusque, Bearcat. I haven't gone through every source, and I don't think those I provided are necessarily weak sources, either. I'll get some more clipped for you. Dflaw4 (talk) 11:06, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, person is notable enough to be kept. I remember watching him on YCDTOTV and Are You Afraid of the Dark, yes notable indeed. Davidgoodheart (talk) 05:58, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you point to reliable sources that would confirm this? Cardiffbear88 (talk) 00:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He had significant roles in You Can't Do That on Television and The Tomorrow People. It's not much, but I think that it satisfies WP:NACTOR #1. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:45, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NACTOR is not a golden ticket to uncontestable notability. It's a presumptive standard - we presume that people who meet one or more of the criteria are probably going to have generated sufficient coverage to meet WP:N, and that's usually true (or else we'd rewrite the criteria). But if we can't confirm that there is sufficient N-satisfying coverage (remember, N requires substantial coverage at a broad, not simply local level), then the article fails the notability test and we cannot keep it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:05, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: a second relist as this is a BLP
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 22:44, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No real dispute that the subject satisfies applicable SNG's. Instead, all we have in response is thoroughly unsubstantiated speculation about the possible nonexistence of sources. Given that the subject had regular or recurring roles in at least eight TV series, that argument is exceptionally implausible. SNGs exist precisely to avoid timewasting disputes where sources are likely to exist, and where there is no factually based dispute over basic claims. They are not disregarded simply because an editor blurts "Prove it!" The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 20:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- SNGs do not override WP:GNG which state that reliable sources must be found. Otherwise we’d have BLPs with no sources just because someone says so, which is ridiculous. So “prove it” is an entirely reasonable response. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 00:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft. As it stands, this is a substantial WP:BLP violation, because no claims in the article are sourced at all. The sole source provided is for a single role in the list. BD2412 T 17:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The actor has 66 roles to date. He has around 10 roles in large film productions, and was especially active in the first half of 2000s, with roles in The Score (2001 film), I can't believe that there weren't any publications about him then. There is a passing mention of him in film Power Corps. (2004) in a book, there were publications in newspapers about him — see urls above. He starred in web-series, and has role in upcoming TV series Sweet Tooth by Team Downey starring Will Forte. Кирилл С1 (talk) 18:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The number of roles someone has is irrelevant, it’s how notable those roles are. All of which needs to be backed up with reliable sources. Have you managed to find any further sources? Cardiffbear88 (talk) 19:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am currently adding the sources I found above to the article, so as to alleviate any WP:BLP concerns. Dflaw4 (talk) 03:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would also say that it would be virtually impossible to have coverage, even trivial coverage, for every role in an actor's career. I think more can be done to improve the article—and I will continue to work on it if it remains—but, for the moment, I believe that it is certainly good enough to pass the notability criteria. Dflaw4 (talk) 03:48, 5 June 2020 (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.