Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jon Paul Steuer

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. – Joe (talk) 17:00, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Paul Steuer

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

Delete: as insufficiently notable former child actor who left acting in 1997. Quis separabit? 19:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable child actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:48, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:NACTOR with his roles on Grace Under Fire and Little Giants. The Star Trek connection may also make the second criteria. --Killer Moff (talk) 12:54, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My guess is this has come up because of his recent suicide? Yet the sourcing/coverage throughout the years is there. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets notability guidelines, if because he departed acting at a certain point is a reason for deletion these days, many former actors should be up for deletion then. Rusted AutoParts 15:34, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets notability guidelines for the reasons outlined above. -- Bobak (talk) 15:43, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets notability guidelines including several films as well as several other notable events. JaxisMaximus (talk) 16:29, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ShelbyMarion -- just| for everyone's benefit but in response to @ShelbyMarion, I had no idea he had committed suicide when I made the AFD. It is a tragedy and I certainly would have waited. I still think he is insufficiently notable but I see the keep votes, so ... Quis separabit? 18:47, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and close. Oh christ, not this shit again. Here we have another example of a person who nominates an article for deletion for not being notable despite it being abundantly clear with just a simple look at the reference section of the article that there's like a million freaking reliable sources about the topic. We really need a stricter enforcement on deletion nominations because I'm so done with this nonsense. editorEهեইдအ😎 21:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@editorEهեইдအ😎, @Edwardx -- BULL. Keep votes or no, I still do not believe that he attained notability as an actor, the tragedy of his suicide notwithstanding. If I believed otherwise I would withdraw the nomination, as I have done in the Lanova AFD. Quis separabit? 02:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@editorEهեইдအ😎 WITH REGARD TO: Oh christ, not this shit again →→→ Watch your mouth. Your arrogant, obnoxious and ill-informed comments are inappropriate. @User:[email protected] 02:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:[email protected] I think he was perfectly appropriate given how idiotic this deletion request is. I don't do any editing on Wikipedia but I felt strongly enough to actually sort this out to comment on your oversensitive reaction to legitimate frustration. Ikaruseijin (talk) 15:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikaruseijin : "I think ... "
What you think is irrelevant. And for someone who doesn't edit Wikipedia (unlike me who has been editing for the better part of 12 years) your hanging around AFDs and making ridiculous comments border on trolling. Quis separabit? 22:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NACTOR. Another case of WP:BEFORE. Edwardx (talk) 22:33, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Was on a notable television show. Notability doesn't expire because his acting career ended long ago. The Vital One (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Vital One -- I never suggested that "Notability doesn't expire because his acting career ended long ago.", just so you know. That was merely one point; Steyer admitted that he ended his career after Grace Under Fire because there were no offers as the explanation for his truncated career. That he "Was on a notable television show" does not satisfy in and of itself, btw. And the fact that you are contributing to AFDs after making a total of 8 edits since last October is a tad interesting. Quis separabit? 02:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability does not have an expiration date per Wikipedia rules. If having your career reach a dead end disqualified someone from having a Wikipedia article, we'd need to do a lot of deleting. Why you care about how many edits I have is beyond me, but if you have something to say go ahead with it.--The Vital One (talk) 23:37, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep NACTOR well past despite being out of the business 20 years, and I'm getting really tired of these 'nom after death/in the news' articles; it's completely disrespectful and tacky. Nate • (chatter) 00:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Mrschimpf -- I did not even know of his death when I initiated the AFD, just so you know, as explained above. I would never have initiated the AFD but would have waited given the tragedy of his death. And, again, keep votes and majority opinion aside, I still do not believe that he attained notability as an actor and stand by this AFD. Period. Quis separabit? 02:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His guest starring role in a Star Trek episode alone is notable and memorable, in my view, as he portrayed a significant character. Keep this article please. Donignacio (talk) 10:06, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The claim is he isn't notable enough but I somehow knew his name to look him up. I discovered he's also deceased. Maybe that's why it's marked for deletion? Some folks get a perverse pleasure out of erasing people once they're gone? Referring to whoever put in the deletion request to begin with. Ikaruseijin (talk) 15:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness to the nominating editor, he does admit above that he was unaware of this subject's passing. The timing of his day-the-death-is-reported nomination is a bizarre coincidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShelbyMarion (talk • contribs) 17:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but find a few more sources maybe? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:45, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP and Speedy close. - Since the article went up for deletion the person in question has died and numerous media sources are reporting on his death, therefore the person is notable enough for an article. Juranam (talk) 08:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (and the SNOW drift is extremely high now). Enough material to show GNG, including that reports of his death have hit the international press. Agree with those above that extra sources should be added, but as the news channels have information about his death, there should be a plethora of available information now. - SchroCat (talk) 10:28, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Löschen He retired from acting at the grizzled age of 12. (per [1]) and, apart from his role in Grace Under Fire, I don't feel any of his roles are "significant" for WP:ENT to be met. His Star Trek role was exactly 1 episode, and no source supports the article's claim that his Little Giants role was a "starring" role. That said, I expect this will be kept for similar reasons that Alfie Curtis was kept; the media clearly feels that appearing in a single episode of Star Trek is sufficient to justify significant obituary coverage. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One episode? Clearly not a Star Trek TNG fan. 67.168.86.194 (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One episode isn't enough to establish notability unless he has ongoing news coverage for being a Star Trek character as with JG Hertzler or like Oliver in The Brady Bunch with Robbie Rist. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:36, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:NACTOR. Clandestine j (talk) 18:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per arguments Juranam. Do find more sources. -Mardus /talk 19:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable as originating actor of a continuing canon character in a major franchise beyond, for example, Buddy Ebsen's involvement as Tin Man. Herb Riede (talk) 20:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You mean in Star Trek? That's not what makes him Wikipedia-notable, unless you can provide multiple news articles about his guest star appearance. His work on Grace Under Fire is far more notable as a primary credit. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:34, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as per arguments. DrachenFyre (talk) 22:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons stated by others. Postcard Cathy (talk) 23:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - His death has been widely reported from various major sources. That would not be the case for a non-notable actor. Cswrye (talk) 00:05, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable child actor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.229.62.200 (talk) 03:33, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep article created in 2006 and clearly notable under WP:NACTOR criteria. I've seen dozens of articles on far less notable people survive deletion proposals.--T1980 (talk) 03:40, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is absurd. The end of an acting career doesn't automatically make a former actor no longer notable. If that were the case, a ton of articles would need to be removed. Regardless, this article meets the WP:NACTOR criteria. 69.50.53.189 (talk) 04:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he was clearly notable before his death, and the extent of major media coverage of his death would suggest that he certainly remains so now. Manning (talk) 12:19, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: is an actor who died a few days ago... besides being notable for the guidelines of wikipedia, delete the page is not respectful.Lester Joice (talk) 12:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep Clearly passes WP:GNG. A detailed obit on a major national entertainment news site (Variety (magazine)) should be more than enough. Sailsbystars (talk) 15:30, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He passes Wikipedia:NACTOR. Notability does not expire with his death.--Mpen320 (talk) 19:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NACTOR for his roles in Star Trek: The Next Generation and Grace Under Fire. Trout to the OP for nominating this for AfD and wasting people's time. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NACTOR with ten credits on Star Trek: TNG. Krimsley (talk) 02:13, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Grace Under Fire as starring role for multiple seasons is his biggest role so that contributes to WP:NACTOR for sure. A single episode of Star Trek TNG on its own would not be enough. With obituaries coming out in news worldwide, would those be enough for him to meet WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:30, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I resent 'feeding the troll' as we used to say, of course originating a major Star Trek character is notable. It turns out he was also on some kind of sit-com as well. Leondegrance (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:40, 7 January 2018 (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.