Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andre Boyer (2nd nomination)


 * 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 23:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Andre Boyer
AfDs for this article: Articles for deletion/The Signal (Film)
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

A user PRODDED this, but it's not a candidate as its been through AfD before. Originally deleted in a multiple AfD; it was then recreated with somewhat new content and survived another AfD, which was withdrawn by the nominator despite there being no sources. As it stands, the article fails BIO as there is no significant coverage of any kind. The most notable thing this actor has done is a recurring role on the web series Prom Queen. Also, he was in a few episodes of something called Co-Ed Confidential, which I presume is a children's program. Article created by a user who is clearly involved in promoting this and other minor actors. Cúchullain t/ c 13:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  —  Jujutacular  T · C 16:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - article offers no proof of notability. Eddie.willers (talk) 21:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 *  Keep  per meeting WP:ENT. The nominator explained that Boyer was in multiple productions, but did not explain how having significant roles in multiple notable productions (being in 24 episodes of Prom Queen and in 13 episodes of the Cinemax adult series Co-Ed Confidential) could possible fail WP:ENT. Sorry Cúchullain... these seem to bring him in. Since the first AfD in 2007, this person's career has not sat still.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q.  22:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge what content is suitable to the actor's entry at Prom Queen, where the actor has his greatest notability. While his body of work grants him a notability through WP:ENT, there does not seem to be enough available yet to suport a BLP past a bare stub. This maintains the history and when the actor receives more press his article might then be recreated.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 17:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment If a merge is not suitable, then please note that I default back to a keep per applicable guideline.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep well referenced article. Per Michael. Ikip (talk) 01:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Also contacted those who !voted in last AFD, including nominator. Ikip
 * Keep His filmography clearly makes him notable. He has appeared in enough notable series to pass the suggested guidelines at WP:ENTERTAINER.   D r e a m Focus  02:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment This was mostly a procedural nom on my part, but the fact is that WP:V trumps the ENT guideline, and the only sources found so far are to a 2-sentence PR blurb on MovieTome, which is hardly a reliable source or evidence of substantial coverage. I did look for better sources myself, but came up with nothing. Remember that this is a BLP, which means that extra care is required. But even if real sources were found, I don't see how he passes ENT anyway; the guideline indicates that an actor should have "had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Boyer had a recurring role in one (passably) notable web series, but a appearances in a few episodes of a late-night adult TV series is not a "significant role", and nor are any of his other roles.--Cúchullain t/ c 21:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Not to quibble too much, but let's look at WP:ENT's "had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions", shall we? His 24 episodes of Prom Queen and his 13 (more than just "a few") episodes of the Cinemax adult series Co-Ed Confidential, no matter what else he has or has not done, specifically meet WP:ENT's requirement for multiple and significant, and more specially as both series are notable per guideline, having their own articles within these pages. Meeting ENT is an assertion of notability and it is sourced. Yes, the article needs more work, but that calls for cleanup and expansion through normal editing.. not deletion. And out of curiosity, and with no disrespect intended... how is it that you presumed in your nomination that Co-Ed Confidential was a children's program? Was that meant to be tongue-in-cheek humour, or had you actually not checked before nominating?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q.  23:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I was just joking about Co-ed Confidential (unless children's programs have gotten considerably more interesting since I was a kid). But on a more serious note, the ENT guideline is necessarily somewhat subjective; my reading is that his work on the show is not a "significant role" in the sense intended by the guideline. But either way, the guideline can't trump policy, and WP:V is not subjective on this front. Unless reliable sources can be found, there is no choice but to delete. I did look for reliable sources, and found nothing: no relevant returns on Google News, and searches of film resources such as Variety and even Entertainment Weekly return nothing useful at all. The fact that he was involved with projects that are notable doesn't say much, notability is not inherited.--Cúchullain t/ c 00:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that he was not in in 24 episodes of Prom Queen and in 13 episodes of the Cinemax adult series Co-Ed Confidential? It seems those appearances met WP:V even before their deletion from the article (now returned). Or are you saying that you disgree that the shows are notable per guideline?  Or is it that you do not feel that 24 episodes of one show and 13 of another do not equate to "multiple" as instructed by WP:ENT?  And sorry, the essay WP:NOTINHERITED does not apply in this case, as your interpretation would put in in direct cnflict with WP:ENT.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q.  03:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't know how to be clearer with what I mean. I am saying that, no matter what roles the actor has had, if there are no "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" supporting it, the article doesn't pass V and that's that; it must be deleted. To quote the policy, "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." The shows themselves do not qualify as sources in this regard, and neither does the two-sentence, user-generated PR blurb from MovieTome. Even if the article passes one or more points of ENT, it must still be deleted if there are no such sources. The WP:BIO guideline, of which ENT is part, contains many caveats to this effect: "...meeting one or more [of the listed standards] does not guarantee that a subject should be included"; "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability"; "Primary sources [in this case the shows] may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject". Etc. As to your question about ENT, I don't think his appearances on Co-Ed Confidential qualify as a "significant role", and so he has not appeared in multiple notable productions.--Cúchullain t/ c 14:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The we use different math. To me, 24 of one and 13 of another is multiple. An actor is not brought back 13 times or 24 times if his contributions were not significant to the production. Once or twice might be arguable be non-significant... or if the character were unnamed background, I would agree.... but 13 and 24 times as a named character as a part of plot and storyline show the actor's part as a significant.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q.  18:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose, but that's besides the more important verifiability issue. All we've got by way of sources is a two-sentence blurb on a questionably reliable film site. Hardly enough to make a bio out of.--Cúchullain t/ c 19:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Now THAT is a cogent argument, thank you. Verifiability is not of issue since the actor's work may be sourced back to the project itself, and the provided source (iffy or not) at best simply confirms one little bare factoid in the article. The relevent question is, not whether or not his work meets WP:ENT... but where can we find sources to expand the stub beyond a name, a factoid and a list. It is not helpful to reduce an article to one-sentence so that others might not consider what it offers or have a reasonable basis for their own searches. It is not helpful to call a person's work insignificant in order to miminalize them in support of one's personal opinion, as such acts against the policies of NPOV and COI. But in appreciation and consideration for your well-reasoned conclusion, I can modify my keep to a delete-without-prejudice.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q.  20:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, Upon further reflection, I'll go with a merge without prejudice in recreation. See above   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q.  17:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * BUT if a merge is unsuitable, I then default to a keep per guideline for stubs pr reasoning below.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Questionably notable living person who might be offended by this bio. Hipocrite (talk) 00:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * To Hipocrite: I returned some of the information you deleted from the article. Your removal of the more notable parts of his career from the article (his 24 episodes of Prom Queen and his 13 episodes of the Cinemax adult series Co-Ed Confidential) left the article as one-sentence stub that might have been more offensive to the subject than the original article itself. His filmography may be sourced back to the films themselves and additional citations of those works is not required. So please refrain from deleting them from the article in the future.  And yes, the article does need more work. Thank you.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q.  03:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course you did. Movietome is not a reliable source for anything, as it's all user-generated. This article is a BLP vio. Hipocrite (talk) 11:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Movietome has not been shown as unreliable in context to what is being sourced. The article on Wikipedia does not bear out your assertion, as it states that user-content is not being accepted and has not been since 2006. The information about a 2009 series is not user generated.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: whether roles in web/cable series meet WP:ENT is highly questionable (marginally-notable productions, no real indication of size of role). No significant third-party coverage (and the reliability of the sole source has been questioned on WP:RSN), so does not meet WP:GNG. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for providing a link to the RSN. Might you be able to support your claim by actually providing a link to the alleged question and the answer? That would be truly helpful.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 17:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry MichaelQSchmidt, I hadn't realised that going to WP:RSN & typing 'MovieTome' in the search box was beyond you. WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 40. I would note that Hipocrite above has also questioned its reliability. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh.... I found the question. However, I did not find any answer that supported your implication that it was unreliable. One can question anything at the RSN. Its the answer that matters.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * MichaelQSchmidt: I did not state that the question had been answered. In any case, this sole source does not provide "significant coverage", even if its reliability is endorsed (which seems unlikely -- it looks as dodgy as hell). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hrafn: Better to simply state that the Movietome factoid is not enough upon which to expand a stub, than denigrate it as a source. THAT would be an argument upon which I would agree.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The unnecessary and unproductive curtness aside, I think it would be more in line for you (Michael) to explain why you think MovieTome is reliable, not for us to reiterate why it's not. Burden of evidence and all that. As the site's content appears to be user-generated, it would fall under the self-published sources policy, which explains how such sources may be used. This is a case where the use is clearly inappropriate.--Cúchullain t/ c 18:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * To dispell misconceptions:
 * Movietome has not accepted user input of any kind since 2006 (see Movietome article). So information about a 2009 project could only have been placed there by Staff, since user-submission of information have been dis-allowed since 2006.  Further, as an entity owned by CNET (see Movietome article) and the parent CBS Interactive (see domain whois), Movietome does not fall under the auspices of WP:SELFPUB.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q.  20:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Per Schmidt (no point in duplicating his points). — BQZip01 —  talk 01:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually it appears that MichaelQSchmidt has modified his opinion to delete, in the face of the verifiability issue.--Cúchullain t/ c 14:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Has he? That isn't clear to me. I can't find much out there about Andre Boyer, though I can confirm he has a significant role in Prom Queen.  I covered Prom Queen for the anchor cove webseries forum back in 2007, though we only posted basic information on him.. --Milowent (talk) 14:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't want to put words in his mouth, but he says above "in appreciation and consideration for your well-reasoned conclusion, I can modify my keep to a delete-without-prejudice". All recommendations, keep or delete, ought to comment on the verifiability and associated notability issues, as this is not a vote.--Cúchullain t/ c 17:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I didn't see how many comments he had in here.--Milowent (talk) 17:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, and in light of User:Milowent's comment, I have switched to merge . While yes, I believe the actor meets WP:ENT... there does not seem to be enough online to support the BLP past it being a rather bare stub. If User:Milowent might consider merging the information of this actor being the only minority lead in Prom Queen, and then perhaps setting a redirect, the history is preserved and at such time when more information on him is searchable, the article can be recreated without prejudice.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q.  17:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect: I added that fact and the reference at the cast listing on Prom Queen (web series), in agreement with MichaelQSchmidt. Can I do the redirect while the AfD is pending though? I doubt this one will come out any other way.--Milowent (talk) 19:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, not while in process... as it may still be a keep. While Wikipedia allows and actually encourages stubs, it seems that this AfD has attracted the interest of many who do not belive that stubs should be allowed to stay and grow... and I do believe the nomination was made with the best of good faith. If a merge of history is not acceptable, I wish the closer to note that I will then default back to a keep... based upon a conversation I began at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people), where it is pointed out that meeting ENT is actually an acceptable reason for allowing a stub to stay and grow as sources become available... and another at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Actors_and_Filmmakers where it is agreed that the film's screen credits (even if the film is not posted online to watch) is acceptable to WP:Verify an actor's career. A keep is within line of policy and giudeline. A merge of history and a redirect removes the article temporarily but honors the GFDL.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:52, 3 November 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.