Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colby Boothman


 * 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. Numerically it's close to a tie, but I discount the first "keep" by a 23-edit-account and the three "keep"s from 28 to 30 July 2016 which do not make any policy-based argunent.  Sandstein  19:44, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Colby Boothman

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )



Promotion fro non notable bit part actor. Outside of a little local puff, look what this R.I. resident has done, he lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. All roles are very minor. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:18, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable bit part actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:19, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a professionally cited, and independently sourced article. Supporting cast of Jurassic World, has LEGO minifigure, and played Luke Skywalker in Star Wars Battlefront, R.I. articles written about actor that does not live in state. Subject has netted more than $2,000,000 in recent years according to multiple sources. Colby Boothman Sources listed below:      -- BrianGuestPH (talk) 23:12, 12 July 2016 (UTC) — BrianGuestPH (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * What sources say Boothman has netted over 2 Milliion? duffbeerforme (talk) 10:15, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , I found these sources and, but I don't know if they are reliable or not. Besides, as you know, net worth is not a notability criterion. I just think he got lucky because he landed an apparently small role in a huge movie. I don't know how actors get paid, but if he's getting money each time Jurassic World is shown somewhere, or he gets paid in some way based on movie revenue, it's no surprise to me that he's a millionaire. Dontreader (talk) 10:33, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Junk sources that copy content from Wikipedia. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Criteria 1 is easily satisfied. Having roles in multiple notable productions, there is no valid reason to delete this article. -BusyWikipedian (talk) 02:06, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , if you put it that way, you are right, but criterion 1 of WP:NACTOR reads as follows: "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." You omitted a key word. Of course the word "significant" is open to interpretation, but for example in Jurassic World Rotten Tomatoes has him listed merely as "Young Raptor Handler", which doesn't seem significant to me. I would expect a first and last name. In Green Lantern he's merely a stuntman. In The Last Exorcism Part II Rotten Tomatoes doesn't have him listed at all . In Beautiful Creatures Rotten Tomatoes doesn't have him listed as a cast member either . In Hot Tub Time Machine 2 Rotten Tomatoes has him listed merely as "Belligerent Guy at Wedding" . In The Town That Dreaded Sundown Rotten Tomatoes has him listed as Paul Mason , so I'll call that one a significant role, although I haven't watched the movie, and he's definitely not one of the main actors. I see no indication of him having a significant role in the Salem TV series (one episode is not enough). In my opinion it's the same situation with MythBusters (merely a guest appearance on one episode, not a regular member of the cast). So I think he fails to pass WP:NACTOR, and therefore WP:GNG would be his only possible salvation. Dontreader (talk) 05:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete I explained above why I believe the subject fails to pass WP:NACTOR. Even if other editors decide that his role in Jurassic World was significant, that wouldn't change my mind because it still wouldn't add up to "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." In my view, his only chance to survive on Wikipedia at this point in time (he might land a bigger role eventually) is through WP:GNG. But before I examine the coverage in reliable sources, it should be pointed out that the contributions made by the creator of this article indicate that he's merely trying to make this subject seem notable. Now, looking for significant coverage in reliable sources, this one is definitely good: The Providence Journal . I also think Providence Monthly is reliable, although most of this article is an interview . There's an article that has a video showing some rather good coverage that aired on an NBC affiliate that mostly serves Rhode Island, called WJAR . The other sources provided here by either don't have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, or the links don't even work for me. My own searches haven't found anything else. I just don't think that's enough to pass WP:GNG but I'll change my vote if more good sources are found. Dontreader (talk) 06:54, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * However, video games are significant productions; I think the film, television, and video game work combined is makes him notable -BusyWikipedian (talk) 19:05, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep I'm looking at his work and it's significance and I can't seem to compute why this article should be deleted. His involvement in the Star War's video game should help in qualifying the notability. I vote to 'keep'. SravaniChalla (talk) 12:16, 14 July 2016 (UTC) Struck sock. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:27, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * What's your going rate for vote stacking? duffbeerforme (talk) 09:55, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep- The artist has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, that is the base of WP:GNG. He has been covered by The Providence Journal, Providence Monthly and WJAR, they can be considered notable reliable sources. Prominent news agencies giving him "on-air" time can not be deemed non-notable. Apart from that there are secondary and tertiary sources available to analyze the claims made within the article. About whether roles are significant or not, I personally believe the young raptor handling scene was most thrilling scene in the movie, I agree it is up to one's personal interpretation. Rotten tomatoes has listed Ryan Gosling's character in Drive as Driver and Viggo Mortensen's character in The Road as Man, I don't think these characters are not significant. Hitro   talk  11:07, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , I think the problem is that WP:GNG is open to interpretation. I will write some key statements in italics: ... has received significant coverage in reliable sources ... That is only true in the case of The Providence Journal . Notice that the coverage in Providence Monthly is two short paragraphs, and the rest is an interview . In my opinion WJAR is better, but not by much . There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. Well, to me it's problematic that only one source that I've found has depth of coverage. Maybe you think there's enough coverage if the sources are added up, but I don't see it that way, especially because I view interviews as primary sources, and I just don't see enough coverage without them. Regarding the movies, that's interesting, but context is important because Rotten Tomatoes shows that in The Road no one has a name, so it's no surprise that Viggo Mortensen's character doesn't have a name. And I haven't watched Drive, but that could be an anomalous situation. Rotten Tomatoes shows only two characters with a first and last name in that movie. I guess you watch tons of movies because that second example is quite bizarre, in my opinion. Good memory! Anyway, I look at this actor, Colby Boothman, and keeping in mind that notability is not temporary, I just don't think he's ready yet. I see too much weight being put on one role which may or may not be a significant one. I haven't watched that movie (Jurassic World). Did he live to tell his adventures? That's always the key question. Dontreader (talk) 12:27, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The sole purpose behind my giving examples of Rotten tomatoes is that that a role can not be judged significant on the basis of character's first or last name. This is not the rationale behind my keep vote. I haven't watched most of his movies, so I can not presume the roles are significant or not. I believe, either subjects pass at WP:GNG or fail at it, there is nothing like partial passing or failing. At the moment, after homogenizing all three of those major sources and other secondary and tertiary sources, I surmise that the subject passes on this criteria. At the same time, I do respect your rationale for deleting the article, it's just that I don't completely concur with it. Hitro   talk  17:55, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Yellow Dingo &#160; (talk)  10:21, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as I'm still not convinced regardless of this article's appearance, his IMDb ultimately and basically says it all; still nothing actually convincing and is best restarted when better substance is available. SwisterTwister   talk  21:14, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:NACTOR as he has not had significant roles in multiple notable films at this point.The subject is 24 years and is upcoming may be notable in the future a case of  WP:TOOSOON now. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:56, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep I just read this on my phone and want to research it some and possibly conttibute after I get home, if that's okay. 2600:1:B118:9EC5:A527:70C3:41BC:D9E6 (talk) 22:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep   I was attempting to add new citations but it seems that wiki citation is malfunctioning. I'll try again later tonight. Page is in progress with new citations and additional info. I would like to clean up the writing to more of a scholarly approach as well.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipage2016 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Hi, This is George. I would like to contribute if it isn't too late. I agree with busywikipedian. There seems to be enough evidence to pass the criteria, but, the page seems to be full of bad citations and is overly promotional. I'm working on another page first, but I want to come back and see if I can clean this up some and make judgement if it can stand. Georgeforhistory (talk) 01:45, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Does anyone know what is wrong with the citations pull-down menu? Wikipage2016 (talk) 01:44, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I've been wiki'ing all day and going to take a break. I did some serious cuts and repairs on this page, what is left looks like it's enough to keep it alive for a while until he earns more credits. It looks like he's gaining at least 2 or more a year so why not let it stay for now. I vote to keep it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipage2016 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * delete articles in The Providence Journal and Providence Monthly certainly count towards notability, interviews/profiles are a key gauge by which notability of WP:CREATIVE is measured.  Unfortunately, when I search for RS, these 2 articles are pretty much all there is.  It's probably simply WP:TOOSOON. There should be no prejudice against re-creating this article if/when he lands a major role and/or is the subject of another  couple couple of feature/interview/profiles in significant media.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 07:04, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * keep One reason I disagree is the Star Wars inclusion. That alone is enough to establish notability. I've seen actors with much less significance keep their pages. Wikipage2016 (talk) 02:46, 6 August 2016 (UTC) Ambox warning pn.svg — Duplicate vote: Wikipage2016 (talk • contribs)  has already cast a vote above.
 * Weak keep for some coverage in RS, and using my ENTERTAINER rule of thumb that several minor roles are the equivalent of one major one.  Th e S te ve   07:24, 6 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Could one of you explain why it looks like BusyWikipedian's edits over the last year and a half look to focus on duffbeerforme's AfDs? Specifically, to keep them? I see Dethcentrik, other Dethcentrik stuff like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electronic Saviors Volume 3: Remission (2nd nomination), and then almost no edits except to !vote keep on this AfD and The Rust Punk Tribe, both also nominated by duff. Awfully strange, no? &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 16:07, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Even stranger, another user, only has two edits: inserting Boothman into a cast listing at Detail (TV series)] (as a guest star??), and !voting at the Rust Punk Tribe. There's an awful lot of weird overlap going on. Methinks an SPI is not far. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 16:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - A review of the keep !votes so far: The only ones coming from editors with more than a handful of edits are BusyWikipedian (see my comment immediately above) and HitroMilanese. The rest are SPAs. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 16:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete doesn't yet meet either WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. A bit part in a blockbuster, very few bona fide reliable sources and then a lot of other coverage in WP:BLOGS doesn't quite add up. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment he was the guest "star" on Mythbusters which is more than a bit part actor. And, I'm being repetitive, but his association with the Star Wars franchise added, the other parts (Jurassic Park, etc.)are really just supporting the notability. Come on, Star Wars and Mythbusters. It seems that there are personal agendas going to delete this. I'm new so I don't want that much attention, but I'm just saying that some of both sides seem to be personal, keeps and deletes. I want to delete some of the page / edit it because it seems too promotional the way it is, but I still vote to keep. If anyone is associated with the subject you should not be a part of this discussion because it is a COI and it just hurts the case. Don't edit, don't vote. Wikipage2016 (talk) 01:31, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - There are some sources, but it doesn't look like quite enough to satisfy WP:NACTOR. The fact that this AfD has brought in so many SPAs doesn't fill me with confidence, either. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 20:14, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Excellent example of a bio of a thoroughly non-notable actor. Minor parts only. If his local newspaper makes a big deal of it, that's the reason why we do not consider such sources to  show notability  DGG ( talk ) 14:24, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I do consider such sources, but I give them less weight, just as I give less weight to minor roles.  Th e S te ve   08:13, 14 August 2016 (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.