Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gordon Jennison Noice


 * 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. Jayjg (talk) 01:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Gordon Jennison Noice

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Does not even come close to meeting the notability requirements for performers. Acting career consists of 15 bit parts in TV shows or movies; the "theatre", directing, and writing credits are unreferenced, and the "network marketing" is for a dietary supplement sold through a multi-level marketing platform. Also a likely CoI issue, because the creator of the article (and the primary contributor" is a SPA whose edits consist of this article, adding a link to this article on November 14, and an effusively promotional edit to the primary spokesman for the dietary supplement.  Horologium  (talk) 18:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment The link to network marketing and promotional tone have been addressed with regular editing.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 08:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You've done a very nice job rewriting the article, but the fundamental notability issue remains. Of the films he's appeared in, only two of them are films released by major studios (Virtuosity and Phoenix), and he is billed 14th and 31st, respectively, in those two films. Of the three remaining films, one was a direct-to-video release (Head of the Family), one has a box-office gross of less than $1600 (yes, one thousand six hundred dollars; Running Time), and the third appears to have made the rounds of indie film festivals before video release (Echos [sic] of Enlightenment). There's not enough to satisfy WP:ENTERTAINER, no matter how well you frame his oeuvre. And the article is totally unreferenced; there's an external link to IMDB, but not any references. As for the stage work, there doesn't appear to be any verification of that anywhere. The "director" and "writer" credits in the lede are also not supported by anything. The four different names and promotion on networking sites make a Google count even dodgier than normal, but there are a total of 20,495 hits for all four variations of his name, not all of which are him (four of the first 20 results for "Gordon Jennison" -wikipedia are for other people).  Horologium  (talk) 14:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * All well made points, and I appreciate the decent WP:BEFORE that you've done. I will offer that IMDB (not a source) has no set criteria for how they display credits order. Sometimes it's alphabetical... sometimes it's appearance order... sometimes it's contractual between actor and productions... sometimes it's completely random. Sometimes it's a mixture of some or all of these methods, as they have no specific guideline for such.  I will also offer that "major" studio is not one of our criteria, and WP:ENT is far more often a judgement call than anything else. I much appreciate the courtesy of your response, specially as I did not opine a keep or a delete.... only performing cleanup as able (always good exercize) and offering the possibility of expanded searches based upon the article's AKAs.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Schmidt strikes again. The performer in question here has no notability whatsoever. I would like to know how Schmidt would justify the inclusion of a Z-grade actor? Eh? Laval (talk) 08:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please restrict comments to the article, not to other editors.  Horologium  (talk) 12:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Lionel (talk) 01:45, 21 August 2010 (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.