Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gilbert Sarony


 * 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  08:11, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Gilbert Sarony

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Procedural nomination, because this is a case where two different AFC reviewers evaluated the exact same sources differently. The sources here are entirely glancing namechecks of the subject's existence in coverage about other people, and none of them are substantively about him for the purposes of establishing that he would pass WP:NACTOR -- so on those grounds, the first reviewer rejected it in July. But then the creator just immediately resubmitted it to the approval queue without adding even one new source that wasn't in the article the first time, and the second reviewer approved it earlier today. As always, the notability test for an actor is not just the ability to verify that he existed because he gets glancingly namechecked a few times in coverage of other things -- it requires some evidence of reliable source coverage about him, and I agree with the first reviewer that the sources here aren't actually clearing that bar. But that's actually secondary to the issue that the second reviewer approved this even though there hadn't been a single new source added since the initial rejection, so this needs to be looked at by a much wider set of eyes regardless of whether it's kept or deleted. Bearcat (talk) 15:45, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:45, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:45, 26 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete does not pass any notability guidelines. We need to better refine AfC process so that resubmissions need to be connected to better sources. We also should require all articles go through AfC.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:37, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep very notable performer in theater and film. His work survives. I find this nomination strange and the coverage of him be quite substantial. Not all of the sources noted are easily available online but that doesn't make them illegitimate. Per an editing restriction I won't be able to respond to any follow up inquiries here but am happy to discuss further on my talk page. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:52, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Every actor who's ever been in film or television at all can always say that "their work survives" — but the fact that the work exists is not a notability freebie in and of itself. There's also no rule that our sources have to be online – you are allowed to cite print-only coverage, like books or newspaper/magazine coverage that predates the googlability era — but we don't keep an article just because you say that other coverage exists that you haven't cited, because anybody can always say that about anything even if they're lying. Even outright hoaxes wouldn't be deletable anymore if all you had to do is say that other sources exist that aren't locatable online and didn't actually have to prove that you were telling the truth. So if you want print-only coverage to tip the scales, you do have to show some evidence of that rather than just asserting it. Bearcat (talk) 16:20, 2 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep passes WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG in my opinion based on the sources in the article. I too find this a strange nomination. This is an early performer from the very early years of film, and a historic entertainer in the history of drag and in the history of vaudeville.4meter4 (talk) 19:33, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you please identify which three specific sources in the article offer the best WP:SIGCOV of him? Because all I'm seeing is glancing namechecks of his existence, not substantive coverage about him. Bearcat (talk) 16:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:26, 4 October 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The SandDoctor  Talk 07:14, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Per WP:NEXIST, "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article." Whether the sources currently in the article are sufficient to show significant coverage, or that he had multiple significant roles in multiple notable productions, I have not yet checked. What I do see immediately is that there is only one source from before 1990, and yet this person's career spanned c. 1875-1910. There are 949 results on Newspapers.com for "Gilbert Sarony" (and a few for "Gilbert Saroni"). Some are show listings, but there are also reviews. He also toured to Australia, England and France, and there is definitely coverage in digitised Australian and English newspapers and periodicals of that era. RebeccaGreen (talk) 18:35, 18 October 2019 (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.