Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A.J. Saudin


 * 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. JForget 22:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

A.J. Saudin

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Unsourced BLP, no major roles. Most significant role is a minor role in Degrassi: The Next Generation. Said character is not mentioned at all in the main article and earns all of three sentances in List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters. No independent reliable sources. SummerPhD (talk) 21:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 *  Delete  Fails WP:BIO. A Google News Archive search returns only passing mentions, with this brief article being the best source. Cunard (talk) 02:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Switched to keep after a lengthy debate. Saudin's starring in Aruba, a notable film, allows him to pass WP:ENT. Cunard (talk) 06:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Yep, the youngster does not have much press, and so fails the GNG... but sources have been added to verify the roles that show him notable under WP:ENT... 7 episodes of Friends and Heroes, 5 episodes of Da Kink in My Hair, and at least 12 episodes (so far) of Degrassi: The Next Generation. That he receives poor or no mention in other Wikipedia articles has no bearing on his now meeting ENT based upon his growing body of work.   MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, he has played the roles of several characters in several TV shows. However, none of his roles are significant, which is required by WP:ENT. Since all of his roles are minor, he fails WP:ENT. Furthermore, notability is not inherited, so it doesn't matter how many minor shows he has appeared in. You agree with me that A.J. Saudin fails WP:GNG. The lack of sourcing for this WP:BLP means that it should be deleted, not kept. Cunard (talk) 07:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * With respects, WP:GNG is only one of the many parts of WP:N... and I certainly did not try to make an argument through WP:INHERITED. The shows you call 'minor' have notability of their own and articles on Wikipedia. Your calling them 'minor' does not remove their already asserted, shown, and accepted notability. You do seem to concur that he has was in 7 episodes of Friends and Heroes, 5 episodes of Da Kink in My Hair, and at least 12 episodes (so far) of Degrassi: The Next Generation. I cannot agree with you that his being a recurring character with multiple appearances in 3 different notable series is  insignificant.  Your assertion fails to convince me, and runs contrary to WP:ENT's stating "Has had significant roles in multiple commercially produced or significant films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions".  An extra would be insignificant...  a background player would be insignificnt... a walk-on would be insignificant...  but multiple appearances as a recurring character in three different notable series is significant and specifically meets the criteria set by WP:ENT.  I am sorry that you disagree.   MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 19:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * His few appearances in shows that have many episodes indicates that he plays only minor characters. Major characters would be in more episodes. The three TV shows you have listed above have had a number of seasons, so if Saudin played a significant role, he would have had many more appearances. Cunard (talk) 21:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Your assertion that even though a recurring, his character 'must' be minor becasue he was not in some unknown and arbitrary nummber of episodes is unfounded, as certainly the productions thought him major enough to bring him back many times. Further, your assertion that he needs to be in even more episodes than he has is unsupported by guideline.  WP:ENT says "multiple"... it does not say more than 5... or more than 7... or more than 12.  He has been in multiple episodes of other shows previously to Degrassi: The Next Generation, and is now a recurring on Degrassi...  and as a recurring he will be in more episodes yet.  It serves to improve the project by alowing this article to remain and to grow. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 03:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My interpretation of WP:ENT when it says "significant roles" is that the roles are portraying notable characters &mdash; characters that are instrumental to the plot. I do not see how A.J. Saudin has played a major role in any TV show. Bear in mind that ENT states that "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." This means that whether or not WP:ENT should rescue an article that is deficient in sources rests with editorial judgment. I would argue to keep this article if there were reliable sources about this individual; however, there are none. When reliable news organizations start covering A.J. Saudin's roles, I would support this article's existence. I do not believe that a biography should remain on Wikipedia if there are absolutely no independent, reliable sources to extract biographical information from. Cunard (talk) 03:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You have not shown that his multiple appearances in multiple notable shows are not significant... only expressed an opinion that you do not believe they could be. Your interpretation of WP:ENT would seem to demand that WP:GNG must always be met first... which would then make WP:ENT a pointless notability guideline. The GNG does not trump other notability guidelines... guidelines which specificlly allow other considerations if/when GNG is not met.  New York Times, TV Guide, CTV, and Hollywood Today are reliable sources that verify his multiple appearances in multiple notable award-winning series.   My editorial judgement is that WP:ENT has been met and it improves the encyclopedia to allow the article to grow through the course of normal editing and over time.  That's the beauty of Wikipedia... common sense allows that stubs can grow, and growth is the purpose of Wikipedia... not its bane. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 05:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The sources you mentioned above are directories, with the exception of the Hollywood Today article containing only a photo of A.J. Saudin. Again, BLPs should be sourced with reliable articles, not unreliable directories. Cunard (talk) 06:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I missed the discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard that declared that the New York Times as unreliable for WP:Verification. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 07:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * See this discussion from Reliable sources/Noticeboard, which stated that the travel section of The New York Times reposts content from Frommers. Similarly, the movie section The New York Times uses other sources (which are uncomplete and unreliable) for its filmography and biography section. See Saudin's biography section, which is blank. If writers and staff from The New York Times personally compiled Saudin's entry, it would actually have content. Cunard (talk) 07:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ...and Frommers was determined to be reliable... thus not only showing the NYT seeks reliable sources, but underscoring their own reliability as well. No where in that provided discussion about a Frommers restaurant review being quoted in the NYT travel section (and subsequently accepted as RS) does it even hint at your interesting conclusion that the The New York Times is unreliable for information on an actor's filmography.  I note that it includes a conclusion that "Reliable sources are not reliable only for what they themselves witness, but also for information that they choose to pass on from other sources".  So thank you for providing a link to a discussion that supports my contention.  The New York Times gets some of its actor informations from All Movie Guide (widely accepted as RS in that field) and has also created its own InBaseline Studio Systems... showing their further reliability for gathering and supplying such information.  The New York Times, having a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking, apparently in their own good judgement, went and created the most accurate source they could... InBaseline. Precedent and consensus have accepted both All Movie Guide and InBaseline as reliable for these informations.  You have not proven they are unreliable for verifying his filmography... only that they do not yet have a bio on him... but then, even the Times does not pretend to be the compendium of all human knowledge. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 08:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that The Times "does not pretend to be the compendium of all human knowledge". It does not cover non-notable topics, such as this one. Cunard (talk) 23:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Contarary to your assertion, the New York Times apparently does think he is notable enough to include facts about him ... as well as does TV Guide ... even without their being an accompanying in-depth articles, and surprisingly, WP:ENT also does not mandate an in-depth article. So around and around and around we go yet again. WP:ENT requires verification in reliable sources in those instances when a fact toward notability must be confirmed and when significant and in depth is not available.  WP:ENT does not expect the GNG to be met, as it it is set up as a different way to look toward notability specifically when in-depth is not aviailable.  Again, WP:GNG does not trump other notability guidelines... yet you continue to speak toward in-depth articles about subjects when WP:ENT is set up specifically for those instances where they do not exist.  For the simple fact of an actor's filmography, and accepting that their reputation is for fact-checking and accuracy, even if they do not include a lengthy article about an actor, the New York Times is reliable for verifiction of facts... and their verifications are not mandated to be in depth to simply verify a fact. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * See my response below to FeydHuxtable's WP:ITSNOTABLE vote for why Saudin's New York Times entry establishes that he fails WP:ENT and that none of his roles are significant. Cunard (talk) 18:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Your response below has itself been refuted as not being supported by guideline or policy. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 21:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep What I always find fascinating is that professional news organizations, such as CTV Television Network, New York Times, and TV Guide, all household names, find A.J. Saudin worthy enough to mention in their meager 60 to 70 pages or half hour time slot. Yet there are editors on wikipedia, who somehow feel that one article in three million is too significant, is too much, and will fervently fight to the last breath to make sure that article 300,045,134 is deleted. Yet another stark irony on wikipedia. I wish I was around for the days, say pre-2004,  when editors argued ideas, not acronyms. Everyone above is arguing acronyms, and no one is arguing the reason why they personally feel article 300,045,134 should be kept.  When you think of it this way, article 300,045,134, it seems all so piety and unimportant doesn't it? Ikip (talk) 06:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The sources you mentioned: New York Times, TV Guide, and CTV are all mentions in directories of thousands, maybe millions, of actors. Directories do not establish notability. As to the "there are editors on wikipedia, who somehow feel that one article in three million is too significant, is too much, and will fervently fight to the last breath to make sure that article 300,045,134 is deleted." argument, this is irrelevant to this deletion debate. Your ad hominem attack is unwarranted. I am not the deletion-hungry person you portray me to be. If you have any issues with my deletion arguments, please discuss with me on my talk page. Cunard (talk) 06:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, directories do not establish notability. However, WP:ENT DOES require verification in reliable sources without demanding that the verification also itself be in depth (that's the GNG). The sources as mentioned provide just that verification in relaible sources. The notability guideline WP:ENT exists for those guideline anticipated circumstances where GNG is not met. The two are not in conflict. GNG does not overrule ENT. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 07:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A discussion dealing with the deletion of an article best belongs on the AFD page. Please don't try to unnecessarily expand this discussion beyond this AFD. Don't you realize this is counter-productive? That expanding this argument only emboldens editors to work harder on the article you are trying so hard to delete? Editors may have forgotten about this AfD, but now external messages outside of this AfD make them even more interested in this AfD.
 * I am not "attacking" anyone or calling anyone anything. Just because an editor shares a different view than you have, in no way makes his comments an attack. By using words like "ad hominem attack" and "deletion-hungry person" and posting a talkback that seems to go nowhere on my talk page, you seem to be personalizing this much more than I ever have. I made a general obersvation about wikipedia, whereas you personalized it.
 * I have definite issues with your deletion arguments, and it is absurd that they should be argued anywhere but on the deletion page which you created.
 * Acronyms aside, the bottom line is that the NYT, TV Guide, and CTV all found this actor to be notable enough to include in there very prestigous and well know pages, and you don't. Ikip (talk) 14:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said above, the directories, which have been reposted from other sources, do not establish notability. As to the part about you making a generalization about some Wikipedia editors, I thought you were saying that I was one of those individuals. I was arguing for deletion and you posted that blanket statement. If you were not intending for it be directed towards me, why did you post that statement in this AfD, and who did you intend to receive that criticism? That statement is not relevant to this AfD. Cunard (talk) 23:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ALL information in the New York Times comes from other sources. It is their reputation for accuracy and fact-checking that allows us to then accept them as a reliable source.  It does not matter to us where they get their informations, and it is not required thatthey give Wikipedia a detailed accounting of their editorial practices, as long as they have checked it for accuracy.  Or has WP:RS been rewritten without someone telling the rest of us?? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. None of these press releases have been checked by editors for accuracy. They are facsimiles of the press releases that were released by the companies who made them. The New York Times does not have the manpower to double-check the accuracy of all the press releases they republish or the filmography of tens of thousands of non-notable actors. As mentioned below, the filmography from The New York Times shows that A.J. Saudin has been in five TV shows. It doesn't even say how many appearances he had in those shows. Even if it did, it would still be unclear whether or not those appearances were significant. See my response below to FeydHuxtable's WP:ITSNOTABLE vote for why Saudin's New York Times entry establishes that he fails WP:ENT and that none of his roles are significant. Cunard (talk) 18:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * See Straw man. Press releases were not used to source the article. Your continued assertion that the New York Times does not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and so cannot be considered a reliable source contravenes WP:RS. Without foundation, you now you assert that they do not have the manpower in order to be considerded a reliable source.  Sorry. I ain't buying it. RS is RS unless you decide to rewrite the rules. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 21:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I did not say that The New York Times was unreliable. I said that they do not have the man-power to fact-check every single filmography of every non-notable actor that they have in their directories. The Times received its info from another source. Cunard (talk) 21:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What you did was link to press releases, when none were used in the article. You made it neccessary to dispell any mis-impression your comment might have given other editors. And since you also repeatedly assert as fact that the Times does not have the manpower to check the facts they publish, please produce your evidence at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard so that consensus can be created to determine the Times as unreliable. Or is it that you feel that this applies only to facts to which you disagree?  MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 03:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The actor has an impressive enough filmography, they found as repeating characters in several notable series, and thus establishing their notability.  D r e a m Focus  09:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * But are those characters significant? The lack of coverage about A.J. Saudin indicates that the roles he played were not significant. Only the major actors in the TV shows he has been in have received multiple, in-depth, independent reliable sources about the roles they are playing. I would vote to keep this article if sources exist, but the lack of sources for this biography of a living person means that it should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 23:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Subject meets our published criteria for inclusion. L0b0t (talk) 17:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:ENT asks for significant roles, not just multiple or recurring ones. No evidence that these roles are significant has been produced. And the NYT etc. have not considered him "worthy enough to mention in their meager 60 to 70 pages" or "notable enough to include in there very prestigous and well know pages", they have put his roles onto their website directory. His roles have been verified, but no evidence of any notability, as defined in WP:N or WP:ENT, has been given. Fram (talk) 18:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly noteable enough to warrant an article. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * How? See WP:ITSNOTABLE. Cunard (talk) 18:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * See WP:ITSNOTNOTABLE. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 21:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That isn't a sufficient reply to my request of how A.J. Saudin is notable. It is the same link I linked to above: WP:ITSNOTNOTABLE . I did not say that this article was "Just not notable"; I have explained my reasons for why this article should be deleted. It fails both the notability guidelines that we have been discussing: GNG and ENT. Please let FeydHuxtable answer my question. Cunard (talk) 21:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Feyd's succinct reaponse is perfectly acceptable. He need not expand simply becasuse you demand it. You pointed to an ATA and I pointed to it too to show how helpful it is to do such. For some in this discussion, the subject is indeed clearly notable enough to warrant an article.  It might be that after seeing every salient point of this discussion being chewed over and over again, he might have decided his time could be better spent elsewhere.  Or not.  He will answer if he chooses.  Or not.  But he has offered his opinion. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 03:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Here are the list of characters Saudin has played (according to the filmography which has been reposted by The New York Times), and why none of the roles are significant. Degrassi: The Next Generation : Saudin is the 25th actor to appear on the filmography. If he were notable, he would be mentioned earlier in the list. Kojak (USA) : Saudin is the 44th actor to appear on the filmography. Even the person who plays the janitor, a minor role in this TV show, appears before Saudin. Comfort and Joy : Saudin is the 15th actor to appear on the character list. This is not from The New York Times because The Times does not have a character list for this TV show. However, IMDb does. Above, the cast order at IMDb, IMDb writes "in credits order", meaning that the significant characters appeared first. If Saudin played a significant role, he would not be so further down on the list. Street Time : Saudin is the 138th character to appear on the character list. There is no doubt that he did not play a significant role. There should be no doubt that Saudin fails WP:ENT. As MichaelQSchmidt argued above, WP:GNG does not trump WP:ENT; however, when both WP:ENT and WP:GNG are not met, the biography should be deleted for completely failing Notability and Notability (persons), which encompass both GNG and ENT. Cunard (talk) 18:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Your repeated implication that the information researched for accuracy and then provided by the New York Times is unreliable has no foundation in policy, guideline, or precedent, and with my apologies, is begining to feel of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Voicing an unfounded opinion over and over in every comment you make here does not make it true. Further, your new tactic that he has to be listed higher in the pecking order in order for his participation to be significant is misleading, and itself has no foundation in guideline, policy, or precedent. Firstly, many production companies submit cast alphabetically. Secondly, actors who become part of cast later in a production often appear later down such lists than do those who were in a production at its outset... indeed cast who were in initial episodes and left after one or two appearances might often be listed above the others who followed or were in more episodes. There is no hard and fast rule about such, and it should not be assumed that there is.  Often, its first-come, first-served. Thank you for granting finally that the GNG does not trump other notability guidelines, however... and contary to you last pont above... both guidelines do not need to be met for notability to be shown. If one  passes the GNG, one merits inclusion, even if failing other criteria. If one can meet the other criteria (in this case ENT), failure to also meet GNG is not the deathknell... specifically since the other criteria are there to be considered specifically when the GNG is not met.  Having the article remain and grow over the course of time improves the encyclopedia.  MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 21:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I did not say that The Times published unreliable content; please do not place words in my mouth. I said that The Times does not fact-check every single biography/filmography (copied from other sources) that are in their directories of tens of thousands of actors (many who are non-notable). Thus, these sources should not be given the credibility that Time's article's deserve. Even if we assumed that these directories are as reliable as articles published by The New York Times, it would only prove my point that A.J. Saudin has had minor roles. His ranking in the character list is a good indication of how significant he is. If there are no sources about his roles, how else would you establish the significance of the his roles? Your first point: the character lists I listed above are not in alphabetical order. They are in order of importance. Your second point: your argument is pure guessing, so my response will also have to be pure guessing. If he were a significant character, wouldn't the production companies move his name to a more prominent position in the list? I have provided evidence of how A.J. Saudin fails both GNG and ENT. Now will you provide some evidence of how he passes ENT? Your strongest argument is that he passes ENT because he has had recurring roles in TV shows. You are guessing that these roles are significant. I am not guessing. The statistics I have linked to above indicate that his roles have been very minor. Cunard (talk) 21:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You can't have it both ways, either the Times has the manpower to check the information they publish or they do not. Did you not even once look at happen to look at InBaseline Studio Systems?  Its the The New York Times Company subsidiary deliberately set up to specifically check information on actors and films?  It gives me complete confidence that they do indeed check facts about films and actors before publishing. Kinda seems like thay DO have the manpower.  Imagine that.
 * And agin,.... and from someone who personally knows how this works and is not merely making a 'guess'... an actor's ranking on a credits list is NOT always by order of importance. Sorry... but you are continuing to make an unfounded assumption that is simply incorrect, and one that has no support in Wikipedia's policies or guidelines... another Straw man.  I have been in a couple films myself, and have experience in how production companies do this.  Many submit list cast alphabetically. Some list cast in appearance order.  Some list cast dependent upon who was there first.  Some list by importance within the project.  Some add later additions to a cast later on the list. There is no hard and fast rule.  It is done all different ways.  It is pointless to try to conclude something from his listing which is not there.  You are asserting a conclusion from your 'statistics' that is unsupported from the 'statistic'.  All that can be properly drawn from your 'statistic' is that out of a huge cast for the 2002 series Street Time, his second film project ever, he was listed 138th.  So what?  He was listed #1 as the lead in the 2006 film Aruba. He's 3rd in the cast list for 2007's Friends and Heroes.  He was listed 25th for DiGrassi... and its a far more recent project.  Its just not helpful to offer his second project from 7 years ago as representative of his notability in 2009. With respects, uou have provided no 'evidence'.  He meets WP:ENT.  MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 03:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The information that he starred in the film Aruba is a strong indication of notability. I have confirmed that Aruba is a notable film and have verified that A.J. Saudin starred in the film. You have now convinced me that Saudin is passes ENT, so I have switched to keep. In future debates, please provide important information (such as Saudin's leading role in Aruba) in your initial responses. That would prevent this long, superfluous debate from occurring. :) Mr. Schmidt, thank you for saving this article from the digital dustbin. Good luck in the other deletion debates you are currently participating in. Best, Cunard (talk) 06:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC) Keep: he meets criteria, and I watch Degrassi: The Next Generation, and his role on Degrassi is a Main Role, he is a regular character too, I've seen him in the opening credits. GreenBayPackersfan09 (talk) 02:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.