Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Carman


 * 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. (WP:NPASR.) (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 05:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Michael Carman

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Thinly sourced biography of questionably notable actor. Only reference is to subject's own webpage biography which is also listed in the external links. Prose outside of the filmography section consists of 2 sentences. Hasteur (talk) 22:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  23:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  23:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment WP:NACTOR requires "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows..." You could make a case for his roles in Nim's Island, Hercules Returns, MDA (TV series), and voice work in The New Adventures of Ocean Girl, as well as a major role in Gerry Connolly Show which doesn't have an article (though Gerry Connolly (comedian) does). --Colapeninsula (talk) 00:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Reply NACTOR is good and all but it derives it's authority from WP:BASIC which is where I'm deriving the notability concern off of. Also using WP:OSE with Gerry Connolly is not such a good idea. Hasteur (talk) 00:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:NACTOR works on the basis that Carman will be covered in reviews/previews/critical studies of his work, much of which will only be found in Australian libraries: the National Library of Australia claims to have material. By the way, it's not WP:OSE to refer people to an article that may contain useful information. If anyone is making arguments to avoid, you're guilty of WP:VAGUEWAVE there. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: will be covered is WP:CRYSTAL. Prove it or the article has to go.  It's currently just a bunch of listings with no verify ability.  The article must be backed up by multiple reliable sources as it's a BLP. Hasteur (talk) 12:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000(talk) 05:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Add Oz (1976 film) to the above list. Carman has enough good roles and has enough coverage for GNG.  and   both have good coverage of Carman. There is also   and  . duffbeerforme (talk) 08:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * And why did you not read the very first line of that section? If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. Again, all that's being done is obstructing the nomination and improving the article. All you're do is waving your hands at vague policies without dealing with the problem.  FIX IT. Hasteur (talk) 13:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "obstructing the nomination"? Is anyone that disagrees with you obstructing your goals? It that how it works? And why did you not read the very first line of that section? If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. Since Carmen has received such coverage he is presumed to be suitable. All you're do is waving your hands at vague policies without dealing with the problem.  FIX IT. Try also reading some of the other policies you refer to. Crystal does not talk about things that have already happened. referring to Gerry Connolly like that was not a OSE argument. Providing suitable references is not a vague wave. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000(talk) 04:51, 6 February 2014 (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.