Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Nahon


 * 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 among policy-based arguments here is that the subject is not yet notable by Wikipedia standards. Michig (talk) 08:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Alex Nahon

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This individual fails to meet the inclusion guidelines as he appears yet to receive any significant coverage in independent reliable sources. None of the many sources offered (a comment by the subject to a blog entry on the New York Times website!) comes close to meeting the threshold. Bongo  matic  01:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete This is an ambitious article about an 18 year puppeteer. Coverage in reliable sources consists of the sort of passing mentions that would be expected of an artistically active high school student.  Perhaps he will end up as the next Jim Henson, but for now, WP:TOOSOON offers excellent guidance. Cullen328 (talk) 05:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Though the sources may be an issue, as I have seen in many, many Wikipedia articles, this wiki article is still valid. There are other articles on wikiepedia about high school artists who have performed works similar in the suggested level of importance. The subject has performed off-broadway, which is comparable to a performance in an independent film. Additionally, he has worked in several theaters and has studied at two universities before age 18. He is the youngest puppeteer to study at the University of Connecticut's Sandglass Theatre Institute. He was one of e 60 students who were selected from more than 1000 applicants to Middle Tennessee State University's Tennessee Governor's School for the Arts.

I am seriously opposing the deltion of this page. According to ENT, an entertainer must meet the one of the following criteria: (1)Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions or (2) has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following or (3) has made unique, prolific, or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. This is Wikipedia's own policy and as per section 1, the subject has performed in film, television (Blues Clues), stage performances (Pippin, The Velveteen Rabbit, Aida, Number the Stars, etc.), or other productions (Sandglass, Governor's School). Another Wkipedia policy, ARTIST states in it's 4th clause ″The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.″ As per clause 4 parts b and c, the subjects work has been featured in galleries in Memphis, TN and the subject ″has been approached by the Brooks Museum to teach puppetry for film as a summer course″ (quoted from the Wikipedia article). If deleted, I will recommend the deletion of another page about a Memphis child actress who's work is similar to the subject's. I am interested to know what others think about this proposal to delete an article about a real person. I am asking that this article not be deleted from Wikipedia's ever-growing encyclopedia of factual, reliable information.

Ath3aterg33k4ever (talk) 07:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC) — Ath3aterg33k4ever (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The key word in the guideline is "significant" and minor appearances on TV do not qualify, nor do high school or local, non-professional stage performances. Other aspects of your argument are known here as other stuff exists, which is a well-known argument to avoid in deletion debates.  You may be right; perhaps there are other substandard articles on Wikipedia which have not yet been discovered and deleted.  That is not at all a valid argument for keeping this particular substandard article, which is the only one being debated here.  Being "approached" to perhaps teach puppetry as a summer course at a museum is not a valid or persuasive claim of notability.  As for deleting articles about real people, we delete them by the thousands all the time here, when those real people do not meet our notability guidelines.  Cullen328 (talk) 07:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Count me in for the defense! I happen to know of this guy's work and it it is significant. I'm pretty sure that most kids would agree that there is nothing minor about Blue's Clues! (Also consider that without his voice, the characters lips would have looked quite weird without the audio to accompany them.) Playhouse on the Square is a PROFFESSIONAL theater (many of its employees are equity. It is a nationally recognized theater that is the headquarters for UPTA (United Professional Theater Auditions... http://www.upta.org/). Additionally, the theater is a part of Circuit Playhouse Inc, which is made up of four professional theaters: Playhouse on the Square, Circuit Playhouse, The Evergreen Theater, and Theaterworks. Please see http://www.playhouseonthesquare.org/join/bng.php#Morgan%20Freeman As a long time patron and former board member, this theater is known to receive rights to broadway musicals, just after the shows have left broadway. Playhouse is one of the first, and has at times been the first, theaters to receive the rights to many shows. This season, it is one of the first 5 theaters to receive the rights to "Next to Normal", "Spring Awakening", "Avenue Q", "God of Carnage".

His high school show was nominated for 4 theater awards including Best Musical, Best Music Direction, and Best Supporting Actress. I know Ridgeway High School, my cousin went there, and its theater department is nationally recognized. In fact, one of their students won Best Actor and was sent to New York to study acting this past year. Like Playhouse, the schools designers and technicians are all working professionals with degrees in their area of work.

By ″approached″, I believe the last person was saying ″asked″. ″The Memphis Brooks Museum of Art is the oldest fine arts museum in the state of Tennessee″ and the summer programs director recently worked with Justin Timberlake on a new music video. The museum is well known is basically what I am saying.

I think its weird to say that because you delete articles all the time, it is therefore justifiable to delete an article simply because you do not think that the subject of the article is noteworthy to your standards. Some people find things important that I would deem unimportant but I certainly don't censor them from the public domain, which is afterall, the goal of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a ″free, web-based, collaborative, multilingual encyclopedia project″ (thats from Wikipedia. The article is not offensive, and has sources providing it with validity.

I am not in favor of deleting this article. Puppeteerman901 (talk) 08:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC) — Puppeteerman901 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Thanks for the support. I knew I couldn't be the only one! God point about Playhouse, I hadn't heard about the new season until now. Yeah, I guess ″asked″ would have been a better choice of words and I agree that it is weird to delete articles just for that reason. Also, good point about the collaborative nature of Wikipedia.

Ath3aterg33k4ever (talk) 08:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete I was not able to find any significant third-party coverage to establishes the notability of this person. Furthermore, the two "keep" !votes above mine appear to have a connection with the subject, as Ath3aterg33k4ever's first WP edit was to this article a scant 16 minutes after it was created, so that right there throws up a .    ArcAngel    (talk) ) 12:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Does not meet notability criteria. Keep votes are similarly and suspiciously long winded and as mentioned above appear to have a connection with the subject. PRL42 (talk) 13:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. I haven't yet had the chance to review the sources, but I can see that the article needs to be cut down severely. If the subject's claim to notability is as a puppeteer, lists of colleges where he applied to and did or didn't get in, and discussion of other college majors he has considered, are not obviously relevant to that and are unsourced anyway. The article needs to be focused on the subject's professional-level activities. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Much of this article is unsourced, and significant portions appear to be unsourceable autobiography. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:53, 24 May 2011 (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.