Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ewen Macintosh


 * 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. I have to confess surprise, but the discussion correctly pointed out a lack of sources showing notability. In the absence of reliable sources to show notability, the subject doesn't meet the standards for a standalone article. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  11:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Ewen Macintosh

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Despite being featured in a highly notable television series, this actor is not notable. There is no significant coverage of him in reliable sources. Bongo  matic  14:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

He's a recognisable actor - certainly as notable as many other 21st-century British actors with Wikipedia pages. Dadge (talk) 18:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Everyone knows who 'Big Keith' is! "not notable" your comment is so laughable, where have you been? I take it back if you dont have a telly. I thought Wikipedia was the free encyclopedia - or is it you can only be here if bongo knows you and approves of what you do? And who is Bongo? How notable is bongo that he gets to stay and says who goes. Ah, I get it, Bongo is the GOD of Wikipedia. The creator and owner, yes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CelebrityFanClub (talk • contribs) 12:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

This ones to help you out, Bongo with your deletion selection - Keith Bishop (The Office) its on Wiki too. Or is the fictional Character allowed as its notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CelebrityFanClub (talk • contribs) 13:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC) — CelebrityFanClub (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

What may be not notable to one has relevance and subsistance to others. This is afterall an information centre. Keep this! And if people keep attempting to delete information that has no relevance to them they will be doing wikipedia a huge dis-service. People will start going elsewhere for their information. People on here maybe try helping others before hitting the delete button as anyone new will not understand and know how it works and it hardly helps promote the site or encourage new people to sign up and stay when they see this type of service going on! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pickylady (talk • contribs) 19:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC) — Pickylady (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Hear, hear Dadge (talk) 23:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Per Dadge. I find it to be a notable article.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:49, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Celebrityfanclub, chill out. You make no sense of your arguments whatsoever. Take a step back and relax. This article is notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment – All this banter is slightly amusing; however, the article fails to establish notability using  reliable sources.  This is not an opinion, but a very basic application of notability Wikipedia criteria. For clarification, Wikipedia articles do not survive because they are notable, they survive because the subject's notability is established using  reliable sources.  Dadge, please note that "real-world" notability has no bearing in Wikipedia.  The guidelines to establish notably, WP:BIO WP:CREATIVE, etc.,  are written in such a manner to eliminate one man's treasure is another's trash application of notability.  No one questions his existence, only if he is notable per Wikipedia criteria. To everyone, I would suggest that instead of commenting back and forth to establish notability here in this AfD, someone looks for and puts some strong secondary sources in the article to establish notability.  ttonyb  (talk) 00:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - although he's appeared in a fair number of TV shows, he doesn't seem to pass WP:BIO as I can find virtually no reliable sources about him. The best I can find is this, an Office fan site, which I don't think is a reliable source: Robofish (talk) 23:48, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete doesn't meet WP:NACTOR, no significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Dragquennom (talk) 13:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. I've tried Googling both spellings (Ewen and Ewan) and gotten nothing but non-reliable sources. Does not seem to pass WP:N. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:33, 1 May 2011 (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.