Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Barnes (actor)


 * 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. John254 02:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Chris Barnes (actor)

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

Child actor from the 70s took part on his debut film, its sequel, and some tv series episodes (including a hollyday special). Seems to fail WP:ENTERTAINER (correct me if I'm wrong). Article was probably created by subject himself (see Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard). Damiens .rf 16:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 *  Speedy keep. Clearly meets notability guidelines. Nomination stems from dispute regarding spam links (which I agree with), but this doesn't mean article should be deleted. Article was created over three years ago (March 2005) by another user. Tan      39  16:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, Tan. I was cautious enough to say "correct me if I'm wrong" in regard to being wrong about the article not fulfilling WP:ENTERTAINER. After re-revising that criteria, I still don't see which of those criterion this bio would met. If you can point me that (or point any other problem with my reasoning) I would be glad to revoke this nomination.
 * You're right that the spam dispute was what brought my attention to this article. But this deletion debate should be decided on the bio's own merits. So, why should we have a bio on this 70's child actor if he didn't "had significant roles in multiple notable films", he didn't have "a large fan base or a significant "cult" following", nor had him "made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment."? --Damiens .rf 17:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, you have to realize that we're discussing a guideline here, not a policy. I'd say his acting resume makes him at least borderline, and the article does link to a reference where the subject was the primary target of significant, reliable coverage. In light of your arguments, however, I'm removing the "speedy" part of my !vote to help foster more debate. Tan      39  17:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to admit I thought that was a policy, not just a guideline. My fault on this regard. --Damiens .rf 17:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Nomination follows an editing dispute that appears to have started yesterday. I'm not sure if this is covered by [WP:POINT], but I don't see any reason for deletion.  Major role in a major film from 1976, and notability isn't lost even with the passage of 30 years.  I will acknowledge that [WP:ENTERTAINER] refers to "significant roles" in multiple notable films; the guideline for a notable film is that it got full-length reviews by 2 or more nationally known critics.  The rest is open for debate, I suppose.  What's significant?  How much is multiple?  Significant is not defined, although I would imagine that being mentioned in the opening credits is more significant than being listed as "Guy #2" in the closing credits, or not credited at all.  The Bad News Bears got reviewed.  The 1977 sequel got reviews too... horrible, "go see Star Wars instead" reviews, but still reviews.  Nominator suggests a strict interpretation of the notability guideline, although I think that the vast majority of articles about actors would be gone if it's interpreted to mean that one has not only be in several films, but to be a star in those films as well.  Mandsford (talk) 17:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, if it's common practice to have articles on One-hit wonder actors, then this afd should be closed, the bio kept, and the guideline updated to reflect consensus. --Damiens .rf 17:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The article lists seven movies/TV appearances, not one... and IMDB lists nine. At least two were major picutres, The Bad News Bears and The Bad News Bears in Breaking Training.  Seven, nine, and even two are all numbers greater than one.  Therefore, he's not a "one-hit wonder" actor.  Maybe a "two-hit wonder"...  but now that you mention it, what is the specific guideline that says "one-hit wonders" are not noteworthy?--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The article, just as well as imdb and just as well as this nomination, lists appearances in 1 major movie and its sequel, and 7 one-episode appearances on tv-series. That is to say he's only notable for his character on the bears movie, and this is a one-hit-wonder on my criteria (actually not, because he was never a "wonder"). Anyway, it's becoming clear on the discussion on this page that being a 70's one-hit is enough to deserve a bio on Wikipedia. In regard to the "specific guideline", I never really mentioned one existed. --Damiens .rf 18:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Huh? So if Sean Connery had only played one character--James Bond, then we should delete the article about him because he only played one character multiple times? What about Desmond Llewelyn??  Moses Harry Horwitz, Andrew Louis Feinberg, and Jerome Lester Horwitz each made careers out of playing the same characters (Moe, Larry, and Curly)! I would say that playing the same character in two major movies is two events, not one:  especially since the movies were released over a year apart.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In these cases, the notability of the character itself makes a difference. Everybody likes winning disputes, but comparing James Bond (character) or Three Stooges to "Tanner Boyle" was a little bit over the top. --Damiens .rf 20:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability is not temporary.  He was notable in 1976, he's notable today.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment / Proposal: Since his notability is completely dependent on the "bears movies"'s notability, and he seems to have never had (in 30 years!) any independent coverage outside of that movie's context, isn't it inappropriate to have a standalone bio article instead of just mention him on the movie's articles? --Damiens .rf 18:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Response Actually, no. See WP:NTEMP for details... but in a nutshell, that would be like saying that Abraham Lincoln hasn't done anything since his death on April 15, 1865 that we should merge it into President of the United States.  Okay, that's a major stretch on significance, but it's the same concept.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Longstanding general precedent is for actors with at least two significant film roles to deserve articles, regardless of coverage (which would be difficult to get online for the 1970s in any case). Notability does not expire. --Dhartung | Talk 18:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep has two strong credits to his name. 64.107.182.4 (talk) 19:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment  First of all, this is the result of an unrelated dispute regarding Fair use issues and the fact that I agreed with Ryan_Postlethwaite that Damiens .rf 's use of twinkle was inappropriate.  He came to this article to "get revenge" and to intimidate.


 * '''Edit: He also trashed The_Color_of_Friendship, Brandon Cruz's article and Chris Barnes' home town of Oradell, New Jersey.  He should be blocked indefinitely for this.


 * Second, I admit I'm the author of a site about Chris Barnes. Damiens .rf   contends that this is a WP:COI issue, when in fact, the guideline that covers an instance like this is WP:EL#ADV, Advertising and conflicts of interest, which he never cited or mentioned.  He's just doing slash and burn editing to cause another editor grief.


 * Third, how is it that you, Damiens .rf, know so much about Chris Barnes? Why are you able to say with such certainty that he is a one-hit wonder or that he hasn't even attained cult status?  I could show you the web stats if they were any of your business.  Where's your research?


 * Fourth, the email link is, admittedly, "a Google thang," but your assumption made me laugh.


 * And last of all, since this is a WP:EL#ADV issue - for now, at least - your use of the term "spam," Tan, and your threat, "Cbsite has a long block history; any more spam violations and it will probably get longer" are entirely inappropriate.

Cbsite (talk) 01:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW, I vote to Delete the article.
 * This is not a vote-counting. What's your rationale for deleting the article? --Damiens .rf 03:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The link you added persistently was inappropriate. You do have a block history for disruptive editing. And the threat stands; add that link again and I'll block you for disruptive editing. Whether or not you think this threat is inappropriate is irrelevant; you've been warned accordingly. Feel free to complain about it, however. Tan      39  14:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Attitude! Cbsite (talk) 00:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The article needs drastic reworking, but the subject is clearly notable based on his work. Alansohn (talk) 03:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Alansohn. Radioinfoguy (talk) 03:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions.   -- Ned Scott 06:31, 20 July 2008 (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.