Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Athelston Williams


 * 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. Arguments for keeping: Sourced (IMDb is not reliable), WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WP:USEFUL. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 21:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Athelston Williams

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

Non-notable actor, famous only for an injoke. No reliable sources cited, I doubt any exist. J Milburn (talk) 00:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC) I accept there is little information about Athelstone, but what there is, is ordered and relevant, not "indescriminate". Arjayay (talk) 12:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC) If a ruling, why is it not stated in the Internet Movie Database article? and what happens to the other 122,000 articles? Arjayay (talk) 14:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC) I repeat - "can you cite a definitive ruling?" Arjayay (talk) 14:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC) The majority of my edits are music and I was thinking of:- WP:BADCHARTS - Deprecated Charts - "This is a list of charts which should not be included in Wikipedia articles." Is there such a list, or guideline, for Film/TV? Despite being linked to 122,000 articles (over 4% of all the articles in the English WP) - You categorically stated "IMDb is not a reliable source", which changed to "it does't matter if it is reliable". Ignoring Athelston for a moment, I would like to know where I stand if I quote IMDb in the future? I am not saying Athelston deserves a place in perpetuity, but whilst the shows are still being repeated, people will seek information, which you propose removing. I rest my case. Arjayay (talk) 16:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 01:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete – doing a search myself, I could not find anything as the nom indicated. MuZemike 06:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: All that I can find is trivial mentions. Fails WP:BIO. Joe Chill (talk) 22:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: I agree he was only famous for an in-joke, but having appeared in 17 episodes over 7 years, it was a very long running joke, which is reaching new audiences as the shows are repeated. There is nothing wrong with in-jokes - there is category for them. IMO an encyclopedia should explain, whereas deletion only makes the in-joke more "cliquey".Arjayay (talk) 08:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's our job only to explain that which is significant- IE, reported in reliable sources. We're not an indiscriminate collection of information. If you want this article to be kept, you're going to have to demonstrate that the subject is notable through the use of reliable sources. J Milburn (talk) 09:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Is the Internet Movie Data base not a "reliable source". It doesn't say mention this in the WP article Internet Movie Database, and there are about 122,000 WP articles that link to that article - you could be very busy removing all of those.
 * IMDB is not a reliable source. J Milburn (talk) 12:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Is that a POV?, or can you cite a definitive ruling?
 * It is not a POV. IMDB is edited by members. Joe Chill (talk) 14:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Internet Movie Database states "Due to the process of having submitted data or text reviewed by a section manager, IMDb is different from database projects like Wikipedia or Openstreetmap, contributors cannot add, delete, or modify the data or text at their whim, and the manipulation of data is controlled by IMdb technology and salaried staff."
 * It doesn't matter if it is reliable or not because it doesn't show the person's notability. Joe Chill (talk) 15:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * (EC) What on Earth would count as a "definitive ruling"? A statement from ArbCom? From Jimbo? From the Foundation? "Definitive rulings" are few and far between on Wikipedia. In any case, that's not an article, it's a list of films in which he has appeared, so it wouldn't count for much even if considered reliable. J Milburn (talk) 15:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, "Definitive ruling" was obviously the wrong phrase - perhaps it should have been "guideline"?
 * I started off by agreeing Athelston "was only famous for an in-joke, but having appeared in 17 episodes over 7 years, it was a very long running joke, which is reaching new audiences as the shows are repeated." I know you can and will cite rules - but IMO this case comes under WP:IAR.
 * Then include information about him in the article on the television programme. Oh, wait, no sources. J Milburn (talk) 16:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The show itself is surley a source in its own right being a primary source of informtaion beyond reasonable doubt, as is the book. As he appears in a book as a charcter in a fictional sense, you can justify this article in the same sense as an article about any fictional charcter. If there exsists primary sources of informtion that you can direct people to if they are intrested you do not need to reference to secondary sources that may be dubious. Surley cast lists or pages from the book can be obtained from some source (BBC?) if nesacary to provide online reference. I just found this page today and found it relavent, maybe it should be intergrated into the main article, but as he made an apperance outside Never Mind the Buzzcocks it should be seperate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.222.126.183 (talk) 16:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That is completely contrary to our guidelines on reliable sources and notability. As a rule, we do not cover subjects that have not been covered by decent, secondary sources. J Milburn (talk) 16:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Not notable beyond Buzzcocks, therefore anything he does not require his own article. U-Mos (talk) 12:08, 1 August 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.