Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grant McFarland


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 00:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Grant McFarland

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I removed a prod from this, wishing to gain a wider input. Original concern was "Non-notable". It's a BLP that severely lacks sources and the role in the TV series seemed to be quite a minor character. That said, according to the IMDb entry, he has appeared in quite a number of episodes and the series itself is notable. I have no opinion either way on this one, but think the article deserves wider input. HJMitchell   You rang?   18:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I endorsed the prod. Article totally lacks reliable sources. (Yeah, I know about before, but I'm sick of working on articles that the author was too lazy to properly source). Only claim is a fairly minor role in a fairly minor spin off of the Power Rangers. Doesn't seem like enough to be considered notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Very little coverage found, and one role isn't much of a career. It's important to realize that back in 2006 people could create unreferenced articles in good faith without it being immediately tagged for deletion. Many of these articles are unsourced because editors lacked an appreciation of the need for sourcing rather than laziness.--Michig (talk) 21:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. - gadfium  01:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I love how the article now has a filmography that was added since I last looked and how it list all sorts of stuff the guy didn't even include on the resume linked from the article. *That's* bullshite ;) Jack Merridew 23:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete for now, but per WP:HEY, source anything in the article and I will !vote neutral or keep. Any reliable source at all. Hipocrite (talk) 17:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. IMDb shows no roles that are even borderline notable. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 17:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nowt but a few passing mentions. Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable actor. Any article sporting an imdb link as its source is implicitly acknowledging that the bottom of the sourcing barrel was reached on the first dip of the ladle. Jack Merridew 23:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I call bullshit on that theory. IMDB is a top Google hit and well-known, so naive editors reach for it as a source. An IMDB link being used does not imply that other sources are unavailable. Fences  &amp;  Windows  02:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I won't be as blunt (because I don't think it's called for). But IMDB may or may not be a reasonable source. For roles, director etc. Yes, I would trust IMDB and consider them a reliable source. That stuff is put their by staff. For trivia, filming locations, goofs etc. No. That's reader/member submitted and they claim they check it, but I have seen things make it that I know for a fact are not true. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to say, I find IMDb mostly reliable- for dates and places of birth, filmographies and other relatively uncontroversial information but having an IMDb entry does not establish notability. HJ Mitchell  |  fancy a chat?   20:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You are entirely correct. An IMDB entry doesn't establish notability, as we've shown time and again. Any role can get you an IMDB entry. "Guy #3 on the bus" makes it in...... Niteshift36 (talk) 22:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * imdb is not a reliable source. Anyone genuinely seeking to source an article will offer rather better if it exists. If an article that's been around awhile doesn't sport better sourcing, then a) no one has tried much, b) no one cares much, or c) there's nothing much to find. Anyway, I don't count imdb as much of anything besides as a route out of here for folks interested in unencyclopeadic content. Same goes for Wikia; I'm sure some try to pass links to there off as 'sources'. I guess there's also d) no one who tried knew much about what they were doing.
 * I think we're talking past each other. I don't mind an EL to IMDB (as they list exhaustive filmographies), but no editor should ever use IMDB as a source. Your (a) is correct, your (b) fails as those who care may be unaware of the article or unaware of Wikipedia's requirements, and your (c) is false, as tens of thousands of articles currently lack sources but are notable (meaning that adequate references exist). Fences  &amp;  Windows  00:30, 25 January 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.