Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demetri Goritsas


 * 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. Black Kite (talk) 09:52, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Demetri Goritsas

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails to meet WP:GNG, much less WP:NACTOR Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - This article appears to be about an ordinary working actor who plays small roles but is otherwise undistinguished. Indeed, the article is virtually nothing more than his filmography list repeated in prose. As it stands, this is a promotional resume, and judging by the one single-purpose account most responsible for it, possibly a self-promotional resume. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Don't Delete - Just wanted to respond and say I'm a bit disheartened the article is being cited for deletion and being questioned for notability. As a first time contributor (though I was hoping not my last as I have a few things I'd like to contribute to in the future but I feel a bit dismayed by this happening and the reaction it is has gotten) I read a lot and researched a lot on the article and on how to make sure I was writing in a way that was neutral and not resume like though I seem to have not succeeded on this point. I'm not the person in question not do I represent him but as a first time contributor it can been seen as suspicious to more experienced contributors and editors. I'd appreciate any feedback or pointers on how best to go about fleshing out so called "stub" articles (as this one was / is) as I thought it would be nice to work on something that didn't have a lot of editors or edits so far. Obviously my tone is a bit off as it's raised flags, would it be better if it was shorter? As for the notability, I think it's quite subjective to say he isn't notable enough to have a page dedicated to him as it was set up by someone else (not me) who obviously had heard of him and thought he was also notable, plus a lot of the films and television shows he has worked on, in some significant if not starring roles, have their own individual pages on Wikipedia. There is a lot of secondary sources online as well (not all independent, I see using personal IMDB sites is a no-no which I didn't realize but appreciate the edit on this) that I linked to so nothing I have said is untrue. He is also known not just for films, TV and theatre but within the gaming sector also for voice work which is quite significant and notable, though maybe gamers don't use wikipedia! I think it's slightly ironic that the largest film he's been in, X-Men: First Class, is his most notable role, for the size of the audience, yet he is being edited out of the cast list on that particular page, which I think is harsh considering you are saying he isn't notable enough yet he is in a very notable film. I'm quite confused so any guidance so I can avoid the article being deleted would be great. It wasn't my intention to make it promotional or resume-like. I'm here to learn and contribute and to be a part of a community not to "link spam" as has been said. Thanks for reading — Preceding unsigned comment added by KNLRJG (talk • contribs)
 * FYI To the editor above: You sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ), not dashes . Second, your last sentence was "Thanks for reading."  Most people won't. Most will say "WP:TLDR". Can you repeat the salient points from above in a concise manner?  From what I see, your argument boils down to WP:ILIKEIT.  Please read the two links in the nomination before replying.  Like many new editors, it appears you have misunderstood notabiliy. Gtwfan52 (talk) 17:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks to the Editor above for the explanation of WP:GNG as explained on another page. I appreciate the time taken and advice given. Though the level of notability I would say comes down to the many secondary, reliable, independent sources on the work of the actor being enough for a stub article (which was already there when I came along from a previous editor). I see I probably did too much too soon. With WP:NACTOR I would also argue he does make the requirement, with significant (named and speaking roles) in notable films, also referenced. I hope this does enough to keep the article from being deleted. Several changes have been made to the article in the past week by others to neutralise the tone, I'd like to keep "neutralising" it in future as well. Thanks. KNLRJG (talk) 15:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * No, "others" haven't done anything. One editor, I, removed some of the more egregious vios and tagged the article. Two bots have made technical (coding, punctuation) edits since. If we're going to debate the merits of this article, let's do it with honesty, please. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:07, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Sorry, I'm just not seeing evidence of WP:GNG here. Present sources are either not up to WP:RS standards or mention the subject only in passing. Hey, I'm a Greek American too, so far be it from me to want to suppress the manifold contributions of Greeks to American culture and society, but that's no excuse to stretch the rules for this guy. I hope he gets a big break and we can revisit the question of notability, for what that's worth. --BDD (talk) 00:02, 7 November 2013 (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.