Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andre Noble


 * 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 redirect to Sugar (2004 film). Barkeep49 (talk) 02:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Andre Noble

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:NACTOR. Whatever little third-party coverage that exists is about his death. Only two years in the industry with minute filmography. sixty nine  • whaddya want? •  04:29, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:32, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:40, 2 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Sugar (2004 film) (his most notable role). It's true that Wikipedia's notability criteria have been tightened up considerably since this article was first created 15 years ago (it takes a lot more now than just being able to verify that acting roles were had), and it's true that most of the coverage he actually had was specifically in the context of his death itself — but even his death wouldn't have been reported as news at all, if Sugar hadn't made him enough of a public figure that his death was newsworthy. So a redirect to the role he's best known for is the most appropriate solution here now, given that he's dead and thus won't ever be able to have a more notable role. All of that said, the notability criteria for actors don't actually require any specific minimum number of years in the industry, or any specific minimum number of roles — a person can be notable for their very first acting role, if e.g. they won a major acting award for it, and a person can be in the industry for decades and have had hundreds of roles, but not be notable if the roles were all bit parts that earned the person no WP:GNG-worthy coverage. So "only two years in the industry with minute filmography" isn't relevant to whether he should have an article or not — but the relative paucity of coverage outside the context of his death is more determinative. Bearcat (talk) 16:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Deaths of even minor celebrities will get press simply because death generates clicks. However, Noble fails WP:NACTOR because his individual coverage was already minimal before his passing, and only in his native country. Being "considered a rising star" does not automatically establish notability, and Noble didn't even receive any award consideration for Sugar, which itself was screened only twice before going to DVD. Searches also turned up multiple people with the same name, while actors with more roles and time in the industry have had articles erased due to lack of notability (i.e., Brian Turk). In its decade-plus existence, his article has remained a stub with just three citations, none of which have links. A redirect should be ruled out, lest someone try to restore the article in the future for no legitimate reason and then we go through this all over again. sixty nine   • whaddya want? •  23:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirecting a "minor celebrity" who is notable only for one specific role, and not for anything else, to the one specific role he's notable for is standard practice. It wouldn't be giving him unearned special treatment — not doing it, when it's exactly the thing we would do for anybody else in a similar boat, is what would be singling him out for different treatment. And incidentally, just because the article only documents two film festivals does not mean the film was only ever screened twice in total; the article's job is to document only world/national premieres, not every followup screening a film ever had. It most certainly screened more than just twice total, because I saw it at the Carlton several weeks after its screening at Inside Out, and even that was not a "one night only" event. (Also it couldn't have gotten the Genie Award nominations it got if Inside Out had been its only time ever screening in Canada: to be eligible for Genie/CSA nominations at all, a feature film has to have had at least a full week of commercial screenings in at least two Canadian cities, and simply appearing at a film festival doesn't count at all toward that total. So if a film got any Genie Award nomimations at all, you can take it as an automatic given that it was screened a minimum of 14 times, with the possibility of more still on the table but the possibility of any less than 14 screenings absolutely foreclosed.) Films that show up at film festivals most certainly do still go into commercial release later on, y'know — just because a couple of film festival screenings are all that's documented in our article doesn't mean that's all the film ever had, because it's not our article's job to calendar every individual screening a film ever had. Bearcat (talk)


 * Delete fails the guideline of multiple, significant roles in notable productions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:11, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Sugar (2004 film), as per 's reasoning, since it's his only significant role. And while I agree this could lead to re-creation in the future, since he can't make any more films, he will only have the one significant role, and never reach the level of passing WP:NACTOR. So, it could be quickly speedied.  Onel 5969  TT me 22:54, 11 January 2021 (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.