Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cooper Hoffman


 * 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. Editors have achieved a rough consensus against deletion. (non-admin closure) — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:38, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Cooper Hoffman

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Actor who does not satisfy acting notability or general notability. Article has been created both in draft space and in article space, which is commonly done to game the system by making it impossible to move the article into draft space. It does not prevent nominating the article for deletion.

The subject only has one listed major role, and that is deficient with respect to acting notability in two respects. First, multiple major roles are required. Second, the film has not yet been released. A review of the references shows that they are puff pieces stating that the movie is being made and that the trailer has been released.

The draft can be left in draft space. He will probably be notable soon enough, but it is still too soon. The only problem with redirecting the article to the film is that the film shouldn't have an article yet either. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:41, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Under what premise should the film not have an article? It's a major motion picture with an objectively notable cast, crew and director? CaffeinAddict (talk) 00:43, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:41, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:41, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I've removed this deletion nonsense per WP:IAR. Come on, people. This is a speedy keep. Many mainstream sources, obvious notability. The nomination is ridiculous and tendentious. Please try to be constructive contributors to the encyclopedia, and try to expand the article instead of vandalizing the project. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep This is frivolous. He’s the lead in a major motion picture by a prominent director, there will be s ton of coverage before the end of the year. I found the AFD because I was curious about the actor, and others will be, too. If the world was going to end tomorrow, fine, he wouldn’t qualify, but there’s no reason other than LARPing to have an AFD instead of waiting a few weeks for the article to organically develop. THF (talk) 23:06, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Too soon. Delete this one and keep the one in draft.  Donald D23   talk to me  23:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Drafify I have no doubt the subject meets WP:N and will in the future...but at this point we should wait for better sources to germinate before forming a mainspace article.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 23:22, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Licorice Pizza. KidAd  •  SPEAK  00:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep He's too different from his father to be redirected to his page, but he's separately notable to the film as an actor himself despite his inexperience to be redirected to Licorice Pizza. CaffeinAddict (talk) 00:42, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Per above, in addition to the similar situation at Michael Gandolfini. Rusted AutoParts  15:34, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Difference is, Michael had plenty of roles before MSoN so they have been written about before that; this is the subject's literal first role. Right now we only have several '250 words wrapped around a YouTube embed of a trailer' articles to source this article; that is in no way acceptable for even the shortest of stubs to be sourced.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 22:03, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That's not how this works. CaffeinAddict (talk) 05:12, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I know exactly how it works, namely the way we collectively decide it works. That is often by reversing process crap instead of going through undue effort. Apparently, there are now cleanup bots restoring bad noms so the next step is a speedy keep and admonishing the nominator to be more careful.
 * Comment I'm always exhausted to note this, but we have no deadline on how and when an article should be created. I'd rather have a great article formed over time by consensus than a poor one which is basically an Entertainment Tonight trailer summary screaming 'look it's that guy's...son!' like we have now. The Hollywood press is not a teacher requiring us to have 2,000 words about a subject by November 26 or they'll fail us.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 20:27, 29 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment I'd additionally like to point out that the Daily Pageviews showed that the page was viewed 5,440 times yesterday. Source: . CaffeinAddict (talk) 15:04, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep I concur with THF's reasoning. B.KaiEditor (talk) 00:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly notable. ~ HAL  333  03:50, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable, even if it is "too soon" it's so by perhaps a week. — Mainly 16:16, 2 October 2021 (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.