Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Sparrow


 * 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. Enigmamsg 05:54, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

David Sparrow

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The subject of this article is an actor and works for an Actors/Performer's union. They have run for office but have not been successful. The condition of the article is awful, and has been for a long time, and a WP:BEFORE search has turned up nothing except run-of-the-mill quotes from him working as a spokesperson for ACTRA. The GNG requires significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, and there's nothing out there to help this article meet this standard. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 02:59, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 02:59, 8 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment So properly assessing him is going to be a right nuisance, given how many performances, since general searches can get lost. I've done the major shows (clearly biased to the ones I know) and his film. His ACTRA position has him doing tons of few paragraph interviews. These are unlikely to be suitable, though WP:IV is a little unhelpful, since it slightly portrays the interviews (if more than WP:MENTION) as providing a general notability, even if they provide almost nothing that is suitably sourced inside the actual article. More likely, these interviews might give the best chance of notability, since there are major publications, and it would only take 1 or 2 with a decent amount of interviewer participation/bio to back the article. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear (I thought I already was) - I already carried out a WP:BEFORE search. If any suitable sources existed, I wouldn't have nominated this article for deletion. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:46, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my point is that it is a general nuisance - I expect (not that my wish is satisfied!) that everyone who !votes in an AfD to carry out their own WP:BEFORE - if we just accepted the proposer's analysis, the process would be rather pointless! Nosebagbear (talk) 09:13, 11 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I also expect voters to do their own due diligence. AfD nominations are notoriously unreliable. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:20, 12 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. Almost certainly notable. Almost certainly not possible - for now - to assert notability for Wikipedia, unless can shake some sources out of his Tardis.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:00, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Even on a ProQuest search, I was unable to find any substantive coverage about him for the purposes of getting him over WP:GNG — I get a lot of glancing namechecks of his existence as a giver of soundbite in articles about other things where his ACTRA role made him a natural person to go to for a soundbite, a couple of glancing namechecks of his existence in election results when he ran for political office, and some unrelated textmatches on other people, but literally the only source that I could find that was about him in any non-trivial way is a primary source press release from ACTRA. And nothing here is so "inherently" notable as to exempt him from having to cite much better sourcing than I was actually able to find, either. Bearcat (talk) 00:20, 15 May 2018 (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.