Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maxwell Huckabee


 * 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. T. Canens (talk) 23:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Maxwell Huckabee

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

fails WP:ENT. the best is 7 appearances in 1 series. and we don't relax guidelines for child actors. LibStar (talk) 06:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Child actor pushing nicely at meeting WP:ENT. We don't judge actors on only their best appearances, but on the depth of their careers (even if short) as well. 7 episodes of Mad Men and 4 episodes of Dexter on top of named roles in several other television series seems to show "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions"... and his career is not over yet. It serves the project to have this article remain and grow over time and through regular editing.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * it is questionable whether these are significant roles. LibStar (talk) 03:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I am in strong agreement with MichaelQSchmidt on this one. These are important roles in important projects. And yes, we have not seen the last of this actor. The point made about the "depth" of a given career is long overdue in these discussion. Evalpor (talk) 04:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. The essence of the article is this: "Maxwell Huckabee is a child actor who took his first role in 2006." It lists his roles, but offers no other details about the subject. Where is the "significant coverage" to pass WP:GNG or WP:ENT? I need to know something other than what is self-evident in order to recommend "keep". Location (talk) 04:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What more do you want? He's seven. Named roles in multiple major network series look good enough to me.Minnowtaur (talk) 06:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I want something more than: "He's seven and appeared as kid A in TV show X, kid B in TV show Y, and kid C in TV show Z." The depth of coverage of this subject does not appear to be significant. Location (talk) 07:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. That suggests to me that the article should be expanded a little, not deleted -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You will notice that I have held off making my recommendation. If there are reliable sources with significant coverage, now is the time to use them to expand the article. Location (talk) 04:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The meeting of ENT requires verifiability, but does not also require meeting GNG. While in agreement that meeting the GNG would be delightful, if it were the "only" guideline editors were allowed to consider, there would be no need for any of the notability sub-criteria to exist at all. Interstingly, and toward your request for the preferred "significant coverage", I have seen far too many discussions where editors argued for deletion of articles which quite positively met GNG but failed a chosen sub-criteria. The sword seems to cut both ways, depending on who is wielding it.  Since meeting ENT is the proposistion, it would be best to follow the nominator's lead and discuss whether or not the verifiable roles are significant.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:ENT is a sub-guideline of WP:BIO, which is in turn a sub-guideline of WP:N. Although it is wise to give some thought to the reasoning of others, I think it is best that each editor eventually measure the article against all relevant policies and guidelines independent of what the nominator or other editors have recommended. Your assertion that "[t]he meeting of ENT requires verifiability, but does not also require meeting GNG" is certainly not universally accepted nor is your understanding of how the various sub-criteria work. There is no policy or even guideline that indicates a subject has inherent notability in the absence of significant or in-depth coverage. Again, if there are reliable sources with significant coverage discussing this actor and/or his roles, now is the time to use them to expand the article. Location (talk) 05:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no doubt that if a 7-year-old somehow had significant coverage in reliable sources, this discussion might be different. But if an editor believes it serves the project to have a stub remain and be expanded over time and through regular editing, as for example User:Minnowtaur seems to be hinting at above, that would be use of relevent guidelines as well. I suppose this is  devolving into the "Immediatism vs Eventualism" argument: If Wikipedia is nearing completion, having something as perfect as possible right away is paramount vs If Wikipedia is still growing, then accepting an artcle as imperfect and allowing it to grow over time and through regular editing might serve.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete: No source, just a short bio. I like to insiste that we don't talk about the future actor b/c the wikipedia IS NOT a crystal ball. we just check the article and vote. If someone want to save the article he has to find reliable source. and a question: These are important roles in important projects, ok, good! but how do you know this?Farhikht (talk) 13:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, I see no significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Nuujinn (talk) 11:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The assertion here is not that the actor might meet GNG, but that he meets ENT... and meeting ENT does not also require mandate always meeting GNG, else there would be no reason to have notability subcriteria at all.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think he fails ENT. -- Nuujinn (talk) 19:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - the part in Dexter was fairly substantial. The stub needs better sourcing, of course Bearian (talk) 20:21, 28 June 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.