Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lee Neville


 * 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. As the comments mention, there isn't any reliable coverage to prove any that any of his parts are noteworthy, or significant 3rd party independent coverage at all Black Kite 18:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Lee Neville

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Bit-part actor with no third-party relible sources to indicate significance or notability - I don't believe an imdb page counts. Quite possibly a Conflict of interest since the only non-anon contributor's name is the same as subject's email address. To show good faith, I feel I should announce immediately that I know Lee Neville personally. I have struggled with my decision over nominating this article for some months but feel my personal involvement doesn't prevent me from nominating this article, nor should I use it as an excuse not to do so when I feel it doesn't comply with Wikipedia policies.GDallimore (Talk) 19:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions.   —GDallimore (Talk) 19:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete fails the notability and/or verifiability policy/guideline by not having significant coverage in multiple reliable 3rd party sources. No way to verify that any of his roles were significant. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia based on fact. Information in this article is a matter of fact. Any information that hasn't been backed up by information elsewhere on the web has been corrected. Lee Neville is an actor who has a proven career as such. In regards to the comments of G Dallimore in particular and also those of Jasynnash2's - simply googling his name Lee Neville will reveal information from renowned third party institutions/directories/services which are not controlled by the actor in question. In addition, as to G Dallimore's comments regarding the IMDb- the IMDb page of actor Lee Neville was not created by Lee Neville. The IMDb itself is known throughout the world as a reputable database of actors. G Dallimore's constant monitoring of this article and Conflict of interest due to knowing the individual and seeing him in a negative way is malicious and does not prove or disprove statements of represented fact in this article, and is not what Wikipedia is about. It is recommended that this article remains as it is, barring any information that needs to be cited. User:emotionboy|emotionboy]] (Talk) 18:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Reply let's start with notability, what importance/significance does this person have in accordance with that policy? Simply existing isn't the same as being notable. verifiability again simple existence isn't the same as verifying that he is notable and why. IMDB is not a reliable source per  the reliable sources policy neither are directories/services which only prove existence and not notability.  Please make yourself more familiar with the policies and guidelines and if you can find reliable 3rd party sources which cover the subject in a significant non-trivial manner include them in the article. Thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 16:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

This article has various external links that cover significant coverage. These are sources which are reputable and have rigorous guidelines. Contrary to previous statements by Jasynnash2 the IMDb is reputable. Should you have a problem with that, feel free to challenge every celebrity/actor that refers to the IMDb as an external link on Wikipedia- and good luck! An article is also worthy of note if it fulfils the Wikipedia notibility requirements. Again, the external links confirm that. It is unknown why there are constant attempts to vandalise this article but such attempts are unmerited, malicious and unacceptable. Please see guidelines to being a Wikipedia user. For now, please view the guidelines below regardfing notability. Then feel free to re-read this article and you will find it complies with Wikipedia guidelines. User:emotionboy|emotionboy]] (Talk) 18:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

General notability guideline : If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable.
 * "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.
 * "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
 * "Sources," defined on Wikipedia as secondary sources, provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred.
 * "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.
 * "Presumed" means that substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not suitable for inclusion. For example, it may violate what Wikipedia is not.

A topic for which this criterion is deemed to have been met by consensus, is usually worthy of notice, and satisfies one of the criteria for a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia. Verifiable facts and content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for inclusion within another article.


 * 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.