Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian J Simpson


 * 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. Whpq's comment seems to describe the general consensus well. NW ( Talk ) 22:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Christian J Simpson

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

The subject of biographical article is non-notable. I have been trying to clean this article up for a few months after I suspected it was being created and maintained by the article's subject. Yesterday it was tagged for a number of issues, including conflict of interest and references. The primary editor then added references, however all of them seem unreliable. 1 is IMDb, where he is listed as an uncredited actor for Episode I, 2 and 3 are the actor's blog and then his blog account's profile, 4 is some sort of online resume service, 5 is a message board post, 6 is some sort of music site that I can't make heads or tails of and 7 is the actor's Facebook fanpage. Plus the entire article seems to read like a resume. -- T orsodo g Talk 17:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly a notable actor. IMdB is OK for cast and credits as these are supplied by professional guilds. This is his IMdB credits. I agree that most of the references are iffy. It would be good to find his agent's page for instance. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, (changed vote) on re reading the notability guidelines for entertainers I would say that this subject fails against those as has not played significant roles. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Question his IMDB credits are relatively voluminous, but look carefully - they are almost all for uncredited bit parts, stand-ins, body doubles, and such. The only way stuff like that even GETS on IMDB is if the dude or his agent ads them.  Not sure if I agree that he is "clearly" anything but a young actor trying to make it in LA. Surfer83 (talk) 23:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment, I agree about the Hollywood credits, but he has a fair few credits on British TV


 * Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Has only had minor roles. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep & Revert I don't really mind if you think this needs deleting, but I don't, and it'd be a shame for it to go for the wrong reasons. Firstly, I'm not the subject of the article, but I am a big fan. There is no conflict of interests, as I'm sure most celebrity articles are maintained by people who like the person. Also I didn't create the article so I guess I'm not the only one who thinks he's of interest. The page has been live for over 2 years with no concern - so I am sorry if my over-zealous additions have taken the article the wrong way - I'd be happy to have it reverted to the version prior to last week. As for TorsoDog's understandable questions of how notable he/the sources are, 1) IMDb lists a number of CREDITS on TOP British TV shows (I guess you don't live in the UK or you'd likely have seen him) - yes the Star Wars one does say 'uncredited', but hey he was in Star Wars - more on that in a moment. 2) You haven't read far enough - this isn't a link to the actor's blog, it's a link to a crucial comment from Leland Chee, keeper of the Holocron continuity database at Lucasfilm Ltd. who confirms that the actor was in Episode I, did play a NAMED character (Lt. Gavyn Sykes/Bravo 6), and that his character was a KEY one in the movie, and allowed Anakin to save the day. This is big stuff, despite the small comment. Clicking through to Mr Chee's profile on that very same StarWars.com official Lucasfilm site will assure you of his stature. So there is no question this actor was a big part of the Star Wars universe, despite presumed contractual reasons he - like many - found it hard to get a full credit (he is credited under SECOND UNIT in fact). 4) Is the UK's equivalent to IMDb and I'm pretty sure each credit must be approved before being permitted on, it's not an online resume service. 5) Is not just a forum post, it's a citation source - this is what wikipedia asks for - it is the Content Developer for Lucas Online confirming he was Darth Vader's double. 6) His official sites only serve to confirm these official sources. This actor has a lot of fans, I know as I've gone to meet him at 2 conventions in Canada and San Diego Comic Con, where those shows must've hired him to sign autographs all weekend long. Finally, I know it's another wiki, but take a look at all the photos of him and his computer game version at http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Gavyn_Sykes then consider he really is too minor for Wikipedia. He's been in a major movie, as a named character, and 2 LucasArts video games. How many less famous celebs are there on wikipedia than that - 1,000s? I'd start there. I'd guess what's happened here is the sources were hard to verify unless you knew what you were looking at, but as a huge Star Wars fan I do know that and I know that the guy who allowed Anakin to win the day, and went on to double for him, is worthy of an entry. Furthermore he is linked to from other Wikipedia articles, such as the list of Star Wars characters, so if you delete this page, you'll make those links go red... then someone will create a new page for him... and, well what's the point? As for his music and writing achievements, I don't know as much about that side, but I did buy the Andy Abraham album mentioned, on iTunes, and yes Simpson did write it (Andy is a big name here in the UK and represented us on Eurovision seen by 600 million people). If despite all that you feel it needs deleting, then I guess you guys know better what us visitors, readers, users, and supporters of Wikipedia like to be able to research here! :) I'd therefore suggest reverting it to the version a week ago. Best of luck and thx for listening. --WikUWerHere (talk) 17:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, the article was created by User:Ewik, your former account that you abandoned after your run in with Wiki mods during your creation of the Gavyn Sykes article (that was also deleted). So yes, you did actually write it. Anyways, if you can't find ANY verifiable, reliable sources for the actor, then there is a good chance he is non-notable. Also, the character Simpson portrays in Episode I may be named, but he is UNCREDITED for the role in the film. So people stop calling the character "key", as he is not at all key to the film's plot in any way. And your argument that other actors with pages are less famous is incredibly poor. Wikipedia is a large, ever-evolving project, and those pages may also be deleted in the future. And if this page is deleted, red links linking to it can be changed. That is the beauty of wikipedia. -- T orsodo g Talk 17:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, you're right I did used to go by Ewik - but when I checked the earliest version of the page in question (as I honestly can't remember if I started it from following a red link), it appeared to have been created by User:90.213.229.245 - my bad for not realising to click 'Earlier' entries. You are however wrong when you say his character "is not at all key to the film's plot in any way". At the end of Star Wars I, Anakin cannot destroy the ship as the ship's shields are impenetrable. Lt. Sykes, Simpson's character, is the pilot who destroys the shields, which allows Anakin to be victorious, and in turn be taken on by OB1, and in turn Sidious, and in turn, turn to the dark side.  If Sykes hadn't destroyed the shields, Anakin would unlikely have turned to Vader. This is my legitimate argument as to why this actor and his character are both notable. That, and his other achievements, British TV CREDITS on shows watched by 20 million people, songwriting for Simon Cowell's artistes, and popularity with international movie autograph hunters like myself.  I hope a sensible decision will be made here, on an article that has been happily living on Wikipedia for 2 years and has been happily added to by countless different individuals, none of whom ever objected to it until you.--WikUWerHere (talk) 18:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * All that about the Sykes character is well and good, but when there is no reliable source that asserts that he is actually notable, then there is really no proof that what you are saying is true. I don't remember hearing anything like that in the film. Secondly, the actor is UNCREDITED in the film. That seems to indicate that he and the role is not all that notable, and if that is this actor's major claim to fame, well... -- T orsodo g Talk 19:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment:Might I suggest that WikUWerHere reads the WP:Notability guidelines, especially the guidelines for entertainers. At first i was impressed by the IMdB credits but then as  stated above most of them are as stand ins or uncredited parts.  None of the roles, including six appearances in a soap and two in Judge John Deed were significant roles.  The citations to Start Wars blogs, fan sites, facebook are  not citations to WP:RS.  Spotlight (ref 4) is a casting directory anyone who has either trained professionally or had a paid acting job can join for about £180 per year, so it is in effect a self published source. The claims of TV shows watched by 20 million viewers are I am sorry to say pure fantasy. When examined closely Christian J Simpson clearly fails the guidelines, as no reliable sources can be found to support his notability, which is why I changed my position to delete. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So Eastenders wasn't watched by 20 million viewers? It was, it's the highest rated show in the UK, and he is CREDITED in it, and other similarly high rated shows. But like I said, if you feel this article hurts wikipedia, take it down. All I can do is provide the requested reliable sources I just found with a bit of Googling (use Ctrl+F): His episode on the Sci-Fi Channel: http://www.locatetv.com/tv/star-wars--unsung-heroes/season-1/328647 | His appearance schedule at San Diego Comic Con, the biggest movie show in the world: http://www.comic-con.org/cci2008/cci_autographs.php | Memorabilia exhibition in the UK, mentioned on top Star Wars news site: http://www.theforce.net/latestnews/story/Memorabilia_Show_Coming_to_NEC_Birmingham_In_The_UK_106828.asp | German interview after he appeared at the Episode III premiere in Germany: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agZje_xhTLU | Canadian convention where he guest stars alongside Chewbacca: http://www.scifiontherock.com/archive/guests.html | Charity show where he guest stars alongside many Star Wars legends: http://www.exewing.co.uk/events/swd10/index.htm | Representation by same agency as many Star Wars big names inc. Lando Calrissian: http://lukoagency.free.fr/pages/News/News.htm | Clip from Spooks: Code 9 which he appeared in on BBC Three: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6apf0iMLrOo | Lightsabre.co.uk interview (frame): http://www.lightsabre.co.uk/Interviews/christiansimpsoninterview.htm | TV Interview alongside Jake Lloyd (Anakin in Ep1): http://www.mefeedia.com/tags/anakin_skywalker | Lucasfim Jedi Con show in Germany mention: http://www.starwarsaficionado.com/page/page/5797539.htm | 3rd party sites: http://starwarsprequelappreciationsociety.wordpress.com/2009/01/04/more-tales-from-the-set-of-rots/ | Convention appearance alongside David Prowse (Darth Vader): http://www.starwarsselect.com/conventions_archives.html | DragonCon show mention: http://the-lazy-dragon.livejournal.com ... there are dozens more but if that doesn't count as 'reliable sources' then I don't know what does. You must do what you feel is right, of course. --WikUWerHere (talk) 21:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Further to his reliable sources above, I have edited the page in question to add these where relevant. One final point - I'm a big fan and as he's obviously on the way up, it would seem silly to delete the page, only for it to have to be created again from scratch when he does something even more notable.  Will leave it with you.--WikUWerHere (talk) 15:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not in the business of predicting someone's future success or notability. Also, nothing is "obvious". It may be obvious to you, as you seem unusually close to this person in someway, and therefore do not seem to be approaching the subject with a neutral point of view. -- T orsodo g Talk 15:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You asked for reliable sources. I gave you reliable sources. They speak for themselves, regardless of if you think someone's biggest fan is biased. Since I gave what you wanted, everyone has gone quiet. That's the equivalent of a jury giving their verdict before the evidence has been presented, then the barrister stating the true case to empty juror seats. Not sure that's the ethical way forward is it? The sources are there, they are notable and reliable, and they say he's notable too. He was in one of the biggest grossing films in history, as a named character, UK TV shows watched by up to 20 million people, and is shown on the biggest sci-fi show in the world's website as an autograph guest. If that's not notable, what is? In hope of a common sense response.--WikUWerHere (talk) 16:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, many of the sources you provided are not reliable. You simply stating that they are reliable does not make them so. And because more people haven't comment since you have responded, that does NOT indicate that this has been unfairly judged. Please do not misconstrue that. And yes, he has appeared in the things you have listed, but as incredibly minor characters. Many other people have appeared in those shows and movies that do not have wiki pages. -- T orsodo g Talk 16:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The YouTube links posted as supposed references by WikUWerHere were gross violations of Wikipedia policy on such links to copyrighted material and they have been removed. Kindly stop digging. Your efforts to prove some sort of notability merely result in your own embarrasment. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow you're a friendly bunch. If "many of the sources are not reliable", that means some of them ARE reliable - again, you asked for some reliable sources, you got some reliable sources. Why ask for them if you get some and it counts for nothing? Saying "Many other people have appeared in those shows and movies that do not have wiki pages" is a weak argument, I am sure their fans will create their pages too - conversely when I argued that many LESSER actors DO have pages here, you criticised me. Double standards do not help this. I believe for any actor to have had even small parts in numerous incredibly high profile productions makes him 'notable'. I'm going to leave it there as I can't go on trying to push my logic.--WikUWerHere (talk) 18:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not being unfriendly, just honest. Yes, some of your sources are reliable, but those do not establish notability. Yes, he was in The Phantom Menace... yet uncredited as a named seemingly glorified extra. The few reliable sources you have provided establish that he was in the movie, but do not provide any more evidence that he is notable for the role. As for other actor's with pages, you are right, they really have no bearing on this argument. Some minor actor articles are created, some aren't. Of those, some are deleted some aren't. It is just the nature of a large wiki project. -- T orsodo g Talk 18:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Notable: Thank you for your kind reply above, Torsodog. Referring to the notability requirements, I argue he is notable, for the following reasons:
 * Requirement: "Has had significant roles in multiple commercially produced ... television shows ... or other productions." As evidenced already, he played main and CREDITED characters in a number of UK TV shows. One contributor agreed with this above. His character, likeness, and I believe voice, were also used as the LEAD role in the Star Wars: Battle for Naboo video game, also featuring in Star Wars: Galaxies - a lead role in a Lucasfilm video game surely falls under 'significant roles' in 'other productions'. He appears to meet this criteria.
 * Regarding to Battle for Naboo, Simpson does not own the character, so it is not "his character". Secondly, the character is never seen, so his likeness is definitely not used for that game. Lastly, Matt Walters is CREDITED for all the voice work for Sykes. (I could make a case that he has more of a claim to the character than Simpson.) Simpson has no association with this production at all. Also, you have yet to provide any reliable source that links him to Star Wars: Galaxies. As of right now, he has no association with that production either. -- T orsodo g Talk 19:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Requirement: "Has a large fan base..." Okay we've seen his fan page which has 250 fans listed. We've also seen evidence of major movie conventions where he was a star autograph signing guest. I am a fan myself. Surely we have to conclude from him being on the San Diego Comic Con website that he has a large fan base, unless the world's biggest movie convention is in the habit of flying 'unknowns' out to appear for some odd reason. They know something you don't?
 * I'm sorry, but we can't assume or conclude anything. And 250 fans on a facebook page doesn't seem to indicated a "large fan base"... -- T orsodo g Talk 19:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Requirement: "Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." As a songwriter with released material for one of Simon Cowell's artistes, and an actor in numerous shows, and a writer, I am of the opinion that qualifies as 'prolific', not just to "a field of entertainment", but to THREE. He seems to over-qualify, from that perspective. He was also the sole subject of the Sci-Fi Channel's Star Wars documentary 'Unsung Heroes', as evidenced above.
 * Requirement: "Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition." His song 'Stay For Life' was on the album by Simon Cowell's Andy Abraham, which charted in the UK.
 * Requirement: "Has won or placed in a major music competition." Even I didn't know this but his own song was apparently a top 20 finalist winner in Unisong 2005 sponsored by Sony http://www.unisong.com/Winners.aspx (use Ctrl+F 'CJ Simpson') and www.euromantix.com
 * This does not seem to qualify as a "major music competition". It seems incredibly minor. Plus Simpson did not win 1st, 2nd, 3rd OR 4th place in this competition. He is simply listed as a finalist. -- T orsodo g Talk 19:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Requirement: "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show..." His co-written song 'Stay For Life' was featured in the TV hit show Bones http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=%22stay+for+life%22+bones+andy+abraham&btnG=Search&meta=

I could go on but I'm bored now. Again, this was all quite easily found with some Googling - some of it surprised even me - the case seems to get stronger. I will be amazed if you disagree with Wikipedia's own guidelines just because you're too proud to back down after I found all the reliable sources you wanted, but stranger things have happened ;)--WikUWerHere (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Prepare to be amazed. I still disagree. I know for a fact that you made up the credits for Simpson in the video games, and right now I don't have the time or energy to actually check your "facts" regarding his musical credits. Also, your ridiculous and condescending tone is unneeded. Try to be civil. Thanks. -- T orsodo g Talk 19:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hang on a minute, that's incredibly unfair to accuse me of being condescending and making things up - you and the others are the ones above who started being rude (saying I'm embarrassing myself etc.) and you are the one who is making things up there - I said above in black & white for all to see "His character, likeness, and I believe voice, were also used as the LEAD role in the Star Wars: Battle for Naboo video game". Where have I made up credits?  1) "His character" is a common term used for the part an actor plays. As Simpson was first to depict Sykes in the Star Wars movie, and you have a Lucasfilm source confirming that, then it is common to call Sykes 'his character'. 2) Simpson's likeness is used in the Galaxies game - you only need to look at all the screenshots from the movie and the game to see the likeness, oh and the fact it has the same character name! Kinda obvious. It's like saying the video game likeness of 007 isn't based on Daniel Craig's character because nobody can prove that it is - erm, just look at it. 3) I said "I believe voice", as in that was my belief - you sourced it better than I did, great, but don't accuse me of lying. The bottom line is Sykes is the lead character in the game - the whole game revolves around him - and Simpson first brought the character to life on screen in the biggest movie of 1999, as shown in the Wikia.com screenshots from the movie. I am sure we can agree on that, even if you don't agree that is a notable achievement. But when you add in the other achievements above that you don't dispute - and considering Wikipedia only requires ONE notable achievement - it just seems blatantly obvious to be that this article does no harm staying. You asked for sources, I provided sources, you then said SOME of them weren't good enough, but others were reliable enough. That sounded good. You then asked me to show he was notable, according to the requirements, which I have also done, but you say SOME of those points aren't valid, but others therefore might be. That sounds good too. Then you say that the valid ones - you don't have the time or energy to check. How can anyone ever win here? Are you ever wrong or do you ever back down? Could I politely request this be escalated to a senior admin for a decision please - it seems to be getting beyond ridiculous, almost as if you have some hidden agenda to stand your ground, whilst I'm trying to give you what you asked for - I just feel you don't want to see it.--WikUWerHere (talk) 20:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please, PLEASE stop trying to draw a connection between Simpson and the games. He has none. At all. Another actor is credited for the character in Battle for Naboo. Walters' name is in the game's credits. Simpson's is not. Period. As for Galaxies, you have yet to prove to us that the character model is based on Simpson. A screenshot showing a white guy with brown hair is not reliable evidence that he is based off Simpson. Sorry. For all I know he could be based off of me. A credit or developer comment detailing this would suffice. -- T orsodo g Talk 20:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, in an effort to move this to a conclusion, you have asked for a 'developer comment' detailing that Sykes = Simpson, and have said that will be "sufficient" to resolve this. Here's the best I can find from some Googling:
 * http://files.me.com/appleiime/92tyvr An old scan of Lucasfilm's Star Wars Insider official magazine, in which Lucasfilm stated, "... The Phantom Menace actor Christian Simpson ... officially designated as Bravo Six, Gavyn Sykes (a character named in the Battle for Naboo video game)." Again, that's THE official Lucasfilm magazine, mentioning Christian J Simpson and no other actor as being Sykes, and intrinsically linked to the character across the game franchises as well as the movie.  They even picture Simpson in the mag (above Padmé).
 * Next you only need to look at the factual chronology for the rest to fall into place:
 * 1997 - Episode I is filmed, with Simpson playing Bravo 6/Sykes.
 * 1999 - Episode I is released, Sykes starts to exist, and Simpson is the face that is associated with the character.
 * 2001 - 2 years later, Battle for Naboo is released, but they use a difference voice actor (presumably as they couldn't get/afford/fly over Simpson). Despite this Lucasfilm still mention only Simpson in relation to the game in their own magazine.
 * 2003 - Galaxies is released. It is absolutely beyond any question that the likeness for the in-game CGI character they would go to would be the actor who portrayed Sykes 4 years earlier in the movie, the same actor they mention in the magazine, the same person's face they print in the article.  This would all have been in the Lucasfilm archive, including headshots of the actor, and the actual movie scenes.  Add to this the striking similarity (right down to shape of sideburns I notice) of the video game character, and I'm sorry but it is without a shred of doubt that the video game likeness is based on Simpson.
 * http://blogs.starwars.com/bravo/1/comments With the utmost respect, I'm not sure you have seen the relevant info on this page. Ignore the actor's own blog entry if you must (even though it is endorsed and published by Lucasfilm on their own website and he is given 'VIP' blog status, reserved just for Lucas staff), and scroll down to the Comments section. There Leland Y Chee confirms, by way of reply to a fan question, that Simpson is the actor name associated with Sykes in the 'Holocron' - Lucasfilm's internal continuity database. Although this is 'just a blog', if you click on Leland Y Chee, you are taken to his profile http://blogs.starwars.com/webapps/blogs/view-profile.action?userID=414903 hosted on starwars.com, owned by Lucasfilm, where his authority to confirm the character and Simpson's association with it, is confirmed: "occupation / company: Continuity Database Administrator, Lucas Licensing. biography: Keeper of the Holocron (Lucas Licensing). Former LucasArts tester."
 * So here we have a Lucasfilm employee in charge of the database that holds actor's names, and who was also a tester for LucasArts (who published the 2 games in question), confirming Simpson's attachment to the character, and mentioning no other actor or reference for the likeness. Just Simpson.
 * Despite everything I have to say I am impressed at how much detail Wikipedia admins go to to ensure the facts are correct. I hope you will be able to kindly agree that it has been shown beyond any reasonable doubt that Simpson is notable enough - albeit not the most famous celebrity in the world - and that I have answered your challenge to provide a developer comment (two in fact) confirming he is intrinsically tied to the role of Sykes.  But I do believe he ticks at least one of the one required boxes for notability on Wikipedia.  Thanks for listening.--WikUWerHere (talk) 21:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Honestly, that all seems like WP:OR to me. Even if that checks out however, we still have Simpson playing an extremely minor character in Episode I where he is uncredited, and his likeness is used as a minor side character in Galaxies. He has no connection to Battle for Naboo. Really, that sums up his notability, and to me it just isn't enough. Sorry. -- T orsodo g Talk 22:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, so why did you ask me to show evidence then? Each time I come back with better and better evidence and new sources, definitely reliable ones, and each time you still act as though nothing has changed - although it has. And yes, okay, let's say that is minor (even though it was a huge movie), you are just focussing on one element, and forgetting to combine in all the other roles. Why aren't we discussing his credited roles on top British TV shows, confirmed as credited on IMDb? Why aren't we discussing his appearance at the world's biggest movie convention as an autograph guest? We seem to be focussing on the wrong details. I respect your view, but disagree. Again, can we escalate this to a senior admin who can look at the big picture here please, if you cannot. Thank you.--WikUWerHere (talk) 22:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Feel free to "escalate" this to whomever you want. I act like nothing has changed because I believe nothing has changed. Yes, the movie he was in is big, but the article isn't about the movie, it is about the actor, who had an extremely small role in that big film. He also had small bit parts in TV. Great. None of those roles have been notable either. Unless you can prove to me that this actor has had significant roles in multiple commercially produced films or TV shows, that he has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following, or that he has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment, I will continue to act like he is not notable. Minor roles in film and TV are not considered "significant roles", the fact that he has a facebook fan page and has appeared at conventions does not show that he has a large fan base or significant cult following, and the fact that he has co-written one song does not make him an entertainer that has made prolific, unique or innovative contributions. -- T orsodo g Talk 22:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Despite the protestations this article is about a non-notable subject. Fails the guidelines for general notability, entertainers and musicians. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 14:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Despite all the winding paths to establish notability put forward, there are no reliable sources writing about this actor so he does not meet the general notability guidelines. As an entertainer, his body of work consist of bit parts.  That his character (arguably) had a pivotal role in Star Wars episode 1 doesn't make him a notable actor.  It's not a notable role.  Nor does his body of work show notability.  So he also fails the specific criteria for WP:ENTERTAINER.  There are also claims of being a writer and musician on his web site but they are completely nebulous unrealized activities.  -- Whpq (talk) 15:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Doing EXHAUSTIVE research to find tiny crumbs of trivial evidence for extremely oblique hints of notability is a difficult way to achieve a well written encyclopedic article.Surfer83 (talk) 23:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - please read carefully I think there is a principle at stake here which is why I wish to point out that, perhaps due to too much text above, mistruths are being written. E.g. Whpq says above "there are no reliable sources ... about this actor so he does not meet the general notability guidelines". That is simply wrong. The criteria you are guided by states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article". Read the definitions for 'significant coverage' and 'reliable sources'. The following, already mentioned above, qualify:
 * The Sci-Fi Channel (a "reliable source") produced a documentary solely about Simpson ("sources address the subject directly in detail"), which was broadcast worldwide. http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22christian%20simpson%22%20%22unsung%20heroes%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
 * RTL Television, a major German channel (a "reliable source"), broadcast a segment and interview as part of their main news program, about Simpson ("sources address the subject directly in detail"). This clip is not copyright so please do not delete it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agZje_xhTLU
 * The Star Wars Insider magazine (a "reliable source"), wrote about Simpson in two issues. The first can be seen at http://files.me.com/appleiime/92tyvr, the second is available in print and featured an interview with him on the last ever day of filming a Star Wars movie, where he was doubling for Hayden Christensen.
 * I could continue with several more reliable sources who have published media or articles solely about Simpson - but I don't need to, according to Wikipedia's own guidelines. I am therefore unclear why - as this clearly meets the actual wording of Wikipedia's guidelines - there is any problem here.  I see no mention in the guidelines that if an actor has had a large number of albeit 'bit parts' but yet still meets the crtieria for reliable sources and significant coverage (again, please do actually read the definition for that if you are not fresh with it), he should not be considered notable enough for a stand-alone article.  The guidelines are quite clear.  I hope someone can politely and assuming good faith, quantify the strange reaction in this case, that appears to go against Wikipedia's own guidelines.  In short, and using quotes from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GNG#General_notability_guideline, which of those 5 bullet points does he fail to meet?
 * Ideally any response below should be along the lines of "I do not believe a dedicated documentary is significant because..." or "I do not believe RTL are a reliable source because..." or "I do not believe the official Star Wars magazine is a secondary source because...".--WikUWerHere (talk) 12:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Minor actor with minor roles. Fails WP:ENT. BTW, this is the first time I've seen "it'll create redlinks" used as a reasoning for a keep !vote. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:26, 28 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.