Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angelo Tsarouchas


 * 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The result was   nomination withdrawn because somebody finally did what needed to be done. Bearcat (talk) 03:54, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Angelo Tsarouchas

 * – ( View AfD View log )

WP:BLP of an actor and comedian, not properly demonstrating that he would pass our notability criteria for actors or comedians. As written, this literally just says that he exists, the end, and then reference bombs his existence to a stack of nine separate citations without actually saying anything about his career that would even be measurable against our inclusion standards for actors or comedians -- but after having reviewed the stack, I still can't add much useful content: two of them are brief and unsubstantive blurbs that aren't about him doing anything notability-boosting; one is a Q&A interview in which he's talking about himself in the first person; and the rest are covering him in non-notable contexts like having been cast in a failed pilot that never advanced to series, having been in a film that doesn't have a strong claim to passing our notability criteria for films, or just soundbiting his thoughts on having Greek ancestry. All of this, further, results from a recent restubbing of a highly advertorialized version that was completely unsourced, which in turn resulted from an earlier conflict of interest takeover of a semi-advertorialized version that was sourced exclusively to the IMDb profiles of his film or television projects, and if you go back to before the IMDb footnotes were added you just get right back to "completely unsourced" again, so there's no viable older version of this article to revert back to either. Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can write and reference a new article properly, but especially in light of all the advertorialism that's infected this article in the past, it's better to just blow this up and start over rather than holding onto a version with this little informational value in the meantime. Bearcat (talk) 02:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:31, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep The article definitely needs improvement, though combining the Greek, French, and this version, might lead to half-decent article. Looking at the references, some are a bit marginal, but there are extensive other sources doing a brief Proquest search. Nfitz (talk) 00:38, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The value in having any article vests in it actually providing information. The fact that it might theoretically be possible to write a better article about him than this does not mean it's necessary to keep this in its current form pending anybody actually attempting to expand it to provide any notable information — if you were willing to tackle expanding it now, then that might count for something depending on the strength of what you were actually able to add, but there's absolutely no value in holding onto it in this form if improvement isn't actually happening, because as written it literally just says that he exists, the end. Bearcat (talk) 17:12, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheChronium  14:07, 15 August 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Bold third relist for more input.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 06:25, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per WP:ARTN, notability concerns the subject and is not dependent on article content. It appears there is room for improvement and sources are available, so this article should be expanded, not deleted. NemesisAT (talk) 15:15, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That's only a compelling argument if somebody actually commits to do some improvement now. It's granted that articles don't need to be perfect right off the bat, but they do still need to actually contain a basic notability claim right off the bat before they're allowed to exist — there's no value in holding onto a version that literally just says that the person exist, while containing no information as to why their existence might be noteworthy at all, just because somebody could theoretically add a proper notability claim 50 years from now. Bearcat (talk) 00:03, 26 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - Yes, this looks like a keep to me. Bearcat, you might consider reading perspectives on this topic at WP:RUBBISH. Fundamentally, this page doesn't meet any of the WP:DEL-REASONs, and so should not be deleted according to the deletion policy. Suriname0 (talk) 23:46, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep articles can't be deleted just because they aren't extensive enough yet. If the sources exist to make a better article then it should stay. If it's so bad to keep an incomplete page around then you could...y'know, maybe fix it up instead of trying to delete it? I'll give it a shot if no one else has time. BuySomeApples (talk) 05:05, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * As my nomination statement very clearly explained, I tried to fix it. But the sources present in the article add nothing that bolsters notability at all, as they're all about things like being cast in a pilot that never got picked up to series, acting in a film that doesn't pass our notability criteria for films, glancingly mentioning his existence without being about him in any non-trivial way, or just soundbiting his opinions about having Greek ancestry. If I'd found one thing in any of the sources that constituted a proper notability claim for an actor, I'd have added it to the damn article and walked away — but there just isn't a notability claim to be located in any of the footnotes present. Bearcat (talk) 00:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the problem is that you're looking for notability as an actor, when a lot of the sources are about his standup comedy career. I put more information about his stand-up career, and also added info about specials and other work. I'm gonna keep working on it since I have a little time tonight. BuySomeApples (talk) 02:11, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, looking back at your nomination I kind of agree with you. The version you nominated was just a single line with a bunch of sources at the end. I can see why WP:TNTing it made sense. I did a lot of work remaking it so hopefully it looks a little better now. (if this nom closes soon enough, I'll nom it at dyk since its basically a new page). BuySomeApples (talk) 03:17, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.