Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Rogers (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   delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  04:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Chris Rogers (actor)
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Deleted as an expired PROD, restored per request. —  Aitias  // discussion 20:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - no real indication of notability provided, I couldn't really track any refs myself. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note:I can see some notability here. The first authorized adaptation of Frank Zappa's Thing-Fish is clearly a significant production although it's hard to determine the size of his role in it. The same goes for The Rapture (film). If those roles are significant enough he meets WP:ENTERTAINER criteria. It would help a lot if rather than credits, the article contained an actual filmography complete with roles. - Mgm|(talk) 10:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. It would be helpful if the nominator could provide a reason for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be even more helpful if the commenting user would read the nominator's rationale, which explicitly provides the reason for deletion. —  Aitias  // discussion 20:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that won't do. By not doing the few seconds' work needed to copy the rationale into this AfD you are making every single editor that wants to comment spend the time to check the article history to find out why you want this to be deleted - and even then we don't know if that is your reason for nomination as that rationale was given by someone else. Please don't think that your time is more valuable than other people's. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you able to read my mind or why do you untruthfully claim that I would "think that" my "time is more valuable than other people's"? May I kindly ask you to stop putting words into my mouth immediately? Also, I did nowhere say that I agree with that prod reason. I have given my only reason for nominating this for deletion: If one wishes a page to be restored that has been deleted as an expired prod, it's just the usual course of action to nominate it for deletion after having restored. —  Aitias  // discussion 21:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This is getting ridiculous. To answer you points in turn:
 * Are you able to read my mind or why do you untruthfully claim that I would "think that" my "time is more valuable than other people's"? - Nominating an article for deletion without saying why you want it to be deleted means that others have to spend more than the couple of seconds that you could have taken doing that to dig around in article history to find the deletion reason. It's a perfectly reasonable deduction from that that you value your time more highly that others'.
 * I did nowhere say that I agree with that prod reason. You did that above by responding to my question as to why you had nominated this with a link to the prod reason.
 * If one wishes a page to be restored that has been deleted as an expired prod, it's just the usual course of action to nominate it for deletion after having restored. - The normal course of action before nominating anything for AfD is described at WP:BEFORE. Nowhere there, or at WP:PROD, does it say that restored prods should automatically be nominated at AfD. If you nominate something for AfD then you are responsible for providing the reason why you think that the article should be deleted. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete By performing a good-faith search for sources as required by WP:BEFORE - - it appears that the article subject is not notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete; the references provided in the article all appear to be press releases and a self-published CV. Very little evidence of notability via reliable-source coverage is provided in the article; and Phil Bridger's searches above seem to imply that this situation is not rectifiable at the moment. ~ mazca  t 11:46, 19 February 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.