Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas Tait (stuntman)


 * 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. In multiple re-listings no support has been found to delete. -Splash - tk 19:37, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Douglas Tait (stuntman)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article has been deleted before but was rewritten and sent to AfD here: Articles for deletion/Douglas Tait. I thought it should be deleted the last time because it could not pass WP:BIO; WP:ENT; WP:CREATIVE; or WP:BASIC. I still think so, but even more. Some of the articles that User:Cavarrone and the other people who voted to keep the article now have a disclaimer that says: "This article was a contribution made by an outside agency or person. The content has not been verified by Canyon News. Please exercise your due diligence prior to relying on this article for factual information. Canyon News is not responsible for the views, words, and opinions of contributors." User:Novaseminary wrote more about that here, for what it is worth: Talk:Douglas_Tait_(stuntman). At the request of the editor who wrote the article in the first place, I reviewed all of the footnotes at the last AfD, so you can look there for more. Hoppingalong (talk) 03:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Here Articles for deletion/Douglas tait is the first time the article was sent here and deleted. Hoppingalong (talk) 03:52, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep the argument about the unreliability of the Canyon River interview was already rised and widely discussed during the previous AfD so... nothing changed. A single primary source (that does not even appear in the article) does not change the things, he passes WP:ENT and WP:ANYBIO. Cavarrone (talk) 07:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - What changed are these particular Canyon News articles themselves. When you cited the one in the last AfD there was no disclaimer noting these particular articles were not actually Canyon News articles. Now there is. Do you still think these postings are Reliable Sources even though Canyon News now says they are not? Hoppingalong (talk) 18:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The article currently does not list any reference to Canyon News so, what is your point? Cavarrone (talk) 19:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Commenting - There are no new Reliable Sources in the article that I can see since the "no consensus" AfD. Several of what some editors including you seemed to think back then were significant coverage in Reliable Sources--the several Canyon News pieces--were removed, probably because of the disclaimer that was added to those articles since the AfD indicating they were not regular Canyon News articles. You specifically pointed to one of them in the last AfD as being part of the reason to keep the Douglas Tait article. What Reliable Sources do you now think make the article meet WP:GNG or WP:ENT? There might be some, but I do not see any actual discussion of Douglas Tait in Reliable Sources (aside from the dumb, non-significant coverage in the Los Angeles Times discussed to death in other places). If there are some, I will be pleased to withdraw this or change to keep. Hoppingalong (talk) 21:19, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As I wrote above the unreliability of the "Canyon News" article (as we are talking about a single interview, not "several articles") was already widely discussed in the firt AfD, at that time the nominator also rised the problem in my talk page and I agreed with him that the C.N. article could not be considered reliable (my fault if I have not edited my comment in that AfD but at that point it was already turned in a battleground so I preferred stay away) but I also pointed that I was still considering the actor passing the guideline for actors for his multiple notable roles (taking as an example the last film of Tait his name is cited in multiple articles even before other well-known actors such as Tony Todd and Sally Kirkland). So, probably he fails GNG for lack of indepht coverage but he still passes WP:ENT. Cavarrone (talk) 22:06, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - There is no Canyon River article that I know of. I think you mean Canyon News. There used to be several of them cited in the article. Either way, I see you think Tait passes WP:ENT, I assume the first factor, "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". Now I get what you are arguing. I guess I would disagree with that because I don't think a role in an unnotable unreleased film (what you noted above) can qualify. The rest of his roles seem either very minor (non-speakign character roles, etc) or are in non-notable short films he produced himself. I looked hard last time--probably harder than I would have--because the article's creator challenged me to do so on my user talk page. I just don't think he meets the "significant", "multiple", or "in notable films" parts of that factor, at least yet. At least I hope you will acknowledge why this is not a snow keep situation--it was no consensus last time and seems weaker this time, not stronger--though I realize you base your keep on WP:ENT which would be the same strength as last time. Hoppingalong (talk) 22:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * My vote was a snow keep as your rationale has as major argument the unreability of a reference that is not more included in the article (for months), a question that was already discussed to death and that, despite you still refer to "several articles", was related just to a single interview (please verify). If you think he fails WP:ENT, sorry, but this is my humble opinion, and, more generally, I feel the arguments for keeping the article in the previous afd are a bit stronger than the delete votes. That said, I will not die if the article will be deleted nor I intend to engage endless discussions about the notability of the subject as it was in the previos afd. So, let's see what the rest of the community thinks about it. Cavarrone (talk) 23:20, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I ran across this as a battle in progress at wp:ani, and the article has been the subject of a long term editing and deletion battle, with one side's editing oriented towards getting the article deleted. Without getting too much in detail, all things considered, I have concerns that this is a non-objective continuation of the battle, and also that the article may be in a battered state at the moment, possibly with wp:notability-related material and references removed.  I have not yet had time to analyze / review the 22 references to determine the amount of wp:notability-suitable coverage, but my first impression is that wp:notabiity may already be established within the article. Either way IMHO this article should be kept for a cooling down and recovery period. North8000 (talk) 15:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Commmenting - No offense to North8000 (he and I have talked on his user talk), but I do not think the current state of the article matters much. What matters is whether this guy passes some variety of WP:N. I searched for references on my own and reviewed those on this version of the article and old versions and do not think he passes WP:ENT or WP:GNG or any other variety of WP:N. I am not sure what weight to give a vote of an editor who admits to not having reviewed the references, yet votes keep to allow for a cooling down period. I understand why North800 feels this way, but I do not think it is relevant at AfD. Hoppingalong (talk) 02:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * My thoughts are pretty much limited to what I said, which does not include expertise on the topic, nor a thorough analysis / thorough knowledge of the references given. But IMHO in this case the state of the article IS relevant to any practical review, including any wp:notability relevant or wp:notability-indicating references or content that might have gotten knocked out during the warfare. And, without getting into details, I do have concerns that such is a possibility here.    Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:32, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment- FWIW, the completely pre-warfare version looks like it is this one: . The version with the most bytes is this one, I think: . I've already considered the references there and others. But even if the article is a single useless sentence, the person could still be notable, and before sending here to AfD an editor is supposed to look for references: WP:BEFORE. Flipside: an article could claim the person is the best ever at everything, but without references saying so the person does not pass WP:N. I accept that North8000 thinks we should look hard for references because some Reliable Sources might not be in the article. But if nobody finds references that meet a WP:N factor, noting how bad the article is kind of irrelevant, no? This essay kind of makes the point: WP:MUSTBESOURCES. Hoppingalong (talk) 04:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * One minor side note. IMHO the article content I think also can serve as a indicator of the likelihood of other sources existing.  I'm semi-active at wp:afd and I often see where credible text in the article indicates significant RW notability and it's clear that the work on sources just hasn't been done in the article.   I'm NOT asserting that such is the case here. North8000 (talk) 12:32, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Notability established for me. Mentions in several news sources, although not top tier ones, minor roles in a large number of films, group nomination for a significant award.  Each one by itself might be argued against, but together, they point to an article.    Th e S te ve   09:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Commenting - So do you think he passes WP:GNG? It seems others are not so sure. Or do you think he passes WP:ENT? If so, how? I am not sure somebody can pass WP:N unless they pass at least one of the actual criteria. I do agree that he sure does comes pretty close to passing a few (he has several significant roles, but in non-notable films; appeared in a few notable films, but in very minor roles; was one of over a hundred stunt performers in a film's ensemble that was nominated for a major award, but did not win; and has been mentioned in Reliable Sources, but only in passing, at most; has had indepth coverage, but not in WP:RS sources), but I do not understand how being close to passing WP:N for several reasons "together" makes a subject actually meet WP:N. Is there a "close but not quite on several factors equals passing" factor that I have missed? Hoppingalong (talk) 02:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, for myself, its WP:ENT, because I consider several minor roles to be the equivalent of one major role. This is not actually in the guideline, (minor roles aren't mentioned at all) it is my own rule of thumb, and I have mentioned it before.  I realized that someone could actually be famous for only minor roles.  In any case, Douglas Tait has over 50 credited roles, some of them in very significant films.  You also have to pick your own level for role "significance".  With these in mind, he easily passes my estimation of WP:ENT.  YMMV, naturally.    Th e S te ve   05:05, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 17:28, 28 October 2012 (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.