Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carter Hayden


 * 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 List of Total Drama series characters. T. Canens (talk) 02:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Carter Hayden

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Pretty minor film and voice actor, I can find no coverage in reliable sources. Not notable. Fences &amp;  Windows  19:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  --  Fences  &amp;  Windows  19:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.  --  Fences  &amp;  Windows  19:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Fail both the General Notability Guideline and the Entertainer guideline. Note that i still have to find a Reliable Source to assert the roles performed so Verifiability is also an issue. All i found is this from the Anime News Network users editable encyclopedia part, so not RS. --KrebMarkt 19:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as above.  JBsupreme  ( talk ) ✄ ✄ ✄	 20:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as failing notability criteria. However, if some source come forward praising his film or television work, I'd be glad to consider a keep.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Struck, See my reasoning below.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The information you added says "Dex Hamilton: Alien Entomologist (26 episodes, 2008-2009) and "Total Drama Island (14 episodes, 2007-2009)". Isn't it a notable role if it appears that many times in a series?  Two different notable series this person has been in, plus appearances in other things, some of which we don't know the extent of.   D r e a m Focus  11:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Notability is not inherited. Having what appears to be a minor voice part in an animated series is not in itself evidence of notability; it is coverage in secondary sources which establishes notability, not verifiability. The same goes for the appeal to "other things we don't know the extent of"; it is precisely because we do not know the extent of these "other things" that we cannot pretend to offer a reliable biography of the subject based on existing coverage. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * With respects, Chris... his argument is not per WP:NOTINHERITED, it is per WP:ENT, and the meeting of WP:ENT requires WP:V of the roles without also demanding that the required WP:V must also meet WP:GNG. Policy here is not at odds with guideline... and I can understand his reasoning, as all the various subcriteria of WP:N are set in place to give editors other considerations toward notability in instances where the GNG is not met.  Insisting that they somehow must, acts in contravention to those guidelines and consensus for their interpretation. None of the notability subcriteria at WP:BIO mandate also meeting the GNG... else why have any of the subcriteria at all?  Thusly, an actor can be ascertained notable by meeting either GNG or ENT, but never need meet both.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 10:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, this isn't correct. The GNG is our notability guideline. The purpose of the sub-guidelines is to imply that a subject passes the GNG because, even if they cannot be found directly, reliable sources are likely to exist somewhere in a copious and reliable enough manner due to the nature of the topic. It is possible to pass the GNG while failing a sub-guideline (for instance, minor actors who are famous for other reasons), but never the other way around, as sub-guidelines imply that the GNG is probably met in specialist publications that we just have to find. However, in this case it is not yet established that this subject passes WP:ENT because fourth billing as a voice actor is not necessarily a notable role. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry Chris... but they are all our notability guidelines, and giving undue strength to one acts to diminish the reason, intent, and consensus for use of the others. Interestingly, I have been in many discussions where an individual easily met the GNG, but editors insisted that failure of meeting subsidary guideline equated to non-notability.  It cannot be had both ways.  The instructions at WP:BIO naturally start off with WP:BASIC and referring back the the GNG.  But important to this discussion, is BIO's "Additional criteria" which states "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included" with then the sub-criteria of BIO following... ENT among them.  Consider for instance, the instruction at WP:PROF that specifically acknowledges that secondary sources are not required... and the instructions at WP:ATH that allow notability simply for competing at a pro level in some sport... and the instructions at WP:ANYBIO that allows notability for the winning of awards.  The meeting of the instructions of the supportive guidelines must always be WP:Verified in reliable sources, but that simple verification is not mandated to alwayd itself be significant coverage, however preferred, else the sub-criteria would be pointless.  Yes, it is possible to pass GNG while failing subsidary notability guidelines (and that's why we look at the GNG first)... but the reverse is also possible per guideline, as notability guidelines are meant to be more a long leash and not a short tether.  In summation, and with respects, it is possible to be found notable through meeting subsidary guidelines without always passing GNG, as that is why the supportive criteria were established.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't follow that. Which notability criteria does he meet?  -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 09:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * None at this time, but worth considering as a redirect.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Unnotable voice actor that fails WP:BIO and WP:N; with no significant coverage in reliable sources impossible to comply properly with WP:BLP and Wikipedia does not exist purely to mirror his IMDB role listings, which is all this article can do. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 15:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the Total Drama Island List of Total Drama series characters, the more notable of the series for which this individual has multiple appearances.  I had thought at first to suggest a redirect to the Network Ten show Dex Hamilton: Alien Entomologist, where this individual has the his greatest number of appearances (28 of 28 episodes, 2008 through 2009), but TDI is the more notable of the two shows.  So, after consideration, I have struck my delete above., as a redirect will preserve the history until such time, if ever, that IF his career grows and he receives coverage enough, he might merit a seperate article, but for now it is TOO SOON   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This isn't a game where one tries to preserve article revisions using whatever tricks are available. Either the subject meets the notability guidelines or it doesn't. If the subject later becomes notable then the article can be undeleted. Stop wasting people's time trying to redefine the deletion process on individual AfDs. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Individual AFDs are where guideline application occurs, so addressing instances as they arise at AFD is proper. Wikipedia is chock full of redirects intended to send readers to where their search for information has context, as many times something non-notable is still a valid search term and a redirects are one of the guideline recommended options that serve the project.  And no, I am not playing a game and do not think civil discussion of guideline is either a "trick" or a timewaster.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep He was on every episode of a notable show, as one of the five main characters. Dex Hamilton: Alien Entomologist (26 episodes, 2008–2009) (TV) As a voice actor he was on Total Drama Island as Noah, one of the main characters, for (14 episodes, 2007–2009) (TV) and then did the voice of Noah for the follow up show Total Drama World Tour. Looks like he was a significant part of these notable shows.  D r e a m Focus  18:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Total Drama World Tour appears to feature a significant number of voice actors. The assertion that the subject played a significant part on the show requires rather more evidence than an assertion of fact. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:19, 22 June 2010 (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.