Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Switzer


 * 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 keep. The article stands notable with support of adequate WP:RS (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp  💬  19:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Bill Switzer

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non notable voice actor, sourced only with IMDb. WP:BEFORE shows some Google hits but nothing that could count as a reliable source, and nothing substantial to help source and improve article. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 05:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 05:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 05:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 05:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 05:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 05:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep as notable as he meets WP:NACTOR with multiple leading roles in notable productions. Eerie, Indiana: The Other Dimension; Mr. Rice's Secret; Sabrina The Animated Series (65 episodes as Harvey Kinkle!), and quite a few others. IMDb page mentions his having won one and been nominated repeatedly for Young Artist Awards. Nominator should have seen these things if he followed the external link to IMDb and saw the multiple roles, award mentions, etc. Naming notability as an issue in the nom statement is disappointing. And I found reliable sourcing on Google Books. If the nominator means the whole package --reliable, secondary, independent, significant--they ought to work on precision. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 12:03, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * DiamondRemley39 Yet again, I need to remind you to focus on the article rather than failing to WP:AGF. WP:NACTOR means nothing without reliable sources to back up, of which IMDb is not one. I have yet to find reliable, substantial, independent sources from Google Books, I don’t see anything in the sources you’ve added. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 12:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yet again, it's not a question of good faith but of competency. See WP:AGF "If criticism is needed, discuss editors' actions, but avoid accusing others of harmful motives" and the essay WP:AAGF. So stop implying that I'm accusing you of bad faith. All I'm saying is you should familiarize yourself with the subject specific notability and write better nom statements if it is the lack of sourcing to which you object. I don't know what to make of your final statement that "[you] don't see anything in the sources [I've] added". Again, be more precise. What do you mean? Last: it's not just the article but the AfD nom that gets discussed in AfD discussions. Weak or incorrect nom statements will be noticed by the people putting in the time to see the facts. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 13:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * DiamondRemley39 OK - specifics - the two Google Books sources you’ve added, in my view, do not demonstrate substantial, reliable coverage, and I don’t understand how you expect me to improve an article with them. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 13:35, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification. The coverage is reliable and serves to verify some of what is in the article. That's why I added them. I don't expect you to do anything to improve the article with them as the work is done. I found it easy enough to add these and remove the unsourced tag, improving it in a small increment. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 13:49, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The significant coverage is in the four articles I've added so far. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 13:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * DiamondRemley39 OK, that’s great - but bear in mind that the significant coverage you’ve found is not covered by WP:BEFORE, so I wondered if you’d like to take this opportunity to rephrase your first comments about IMDB, about my nom statement, and about “precision”? Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:17, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll take an opportunity again to try to help you understand the problem with the nom, though we are beating the dead horse: in the BEFORE process you should have seen IMDb, which had those multiple roles and awards mentioned meeting WP:NACTOR, so you shouldn't have said that the notability was an issue. Don't say something is wrong when it isn't. Notability issues and sourcing issues are not the same things, so if it's just the sourcing, say so. Does that help? DiamondRemley39 (talk) 16:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I’m not going to take any notice of IMDb when it’s a deprecated source. So no it doesn’t help. Ceasing this conversation. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment Added some sources. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 12:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per the sources added by DiamondRemley39, which demonstrate notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:06, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep as per the multiple reliable sources added to the article as per WP:HEY so that deletion is no longer necessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:48, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   16:20, 3 August 2020 (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.