Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Pollock


 * 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 and redirect to Doctor Eggman. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Mike Pollock

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

He's notable for being Eggman in the Sonic series, but anything else? Raoul Contesta is way low on the pokemon characters list. Is there something else that would make him enough for WP:ENT? He does attend a bunch of anime conventions in the NY/NJ area. Maybe Meat in Ultimate Muscle, but that isn't a major anime production in the US. AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 17:19, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Like, you said, Eggman is plenty notable (At 13 years, he's held the role longer than any other English actor), and while Raoul is low, being the narrator for 125 episodes and three movies is pretty significant. Plus there's 15+ years worth of other stuff on his resume, most of which are notable enough to have pages on this wiki. And the con attendance isn't just in NY/NJ; he did a con in LA just two weeks ago, according to his Twitter. I'd say that's plenty. -- 68.37.227.226 (talk) 01:33, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Article still needs more secondary sources. Con profile writeups can sometimes be primary self-published sources. AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 05:01, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * A need for secondary sources hardly demands deletion; it just means someone's gotta do some digging, which honestly shouldn't be that difficult. Deletion is an extreme solution to a minor problem. -- 68.37.227.226 (talk) 05:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * A need for secondary sources is the main reason why deletion discussions exist... Either you have sources to introduce or you don't. czar  18:02, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 17:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 17:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 17:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 17:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 18:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 18:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. <strong style="color:#606060;">AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 18:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep – The article could use a few more citations, but it does a pretty good job of establishing his notability. WP:ENT doesn't say they have to be multiple different roles; playing the same main character throughout a long-running series, as well as playing notable supporting roles in several other series, should qualify. --V2Blast (talk) 04:28, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Sonic counts as one major role in the franchise. Pokemon is potentially the second one, although "interim" makes it sound like a minor role with a handful of appearances whereas 125 episodes is more than a typical interim narrator. <strong style="color:#606060;">AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 05:01, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * "Interim" Narrator is only Pollock's pet name for the role; the role itself is that of the actual series narrator. Pollock took over midway through the sixth season when Rodger Parsons, the previous narrator, departed the show. However when Pokemon USA took over dubbing responsibilities from 4Kids, Parsons became the narrator once again. Hence the "interim" nickname. Also, I'd argue Viva Pinata is another notable case, as Pollock voiced Langston (a series regular) in both the television show and the video game it was based on (as well as its sequel). With the exception of series antagonist Professor Pester, Langston is the only named character to appear in both the cartoon and games. -- 68.37.227.226 (talk) 05:15, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Yeah, I agree, cause there are a lot of sources that Mike has voiced over the years, ya know! ;) NJOrozco 06:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norozco1 (talk • contribs)
 * It needs sources that aren't just name drops or casual mentions though. <strong style="color:#606060;">AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 18:22, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Right, and yet at the same time, it has to be reliable enough to be included in the article as well, like anime & animated shows that Mike was credited for, ya know! ;) NJOrozco 00:33, 30 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norozco1 (talk • contribs)
 * Not the ones prior to this AFD! Rotten Tomatoes biography is based on the Wikipedia article so that's no good. None of the details surrounding his involvement in Sonic is referenced except the very last part in 2015. <strong style="color:#606060;">AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 00:37, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Right, so we just need to find some reliable sources that connects to his Biography, and that surround his involvement in Sonic as well! :) NJOrozco 00:48, 30 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norozco1 (talk • contribs)
 * Keep - Clearly notable. The need for additional secondary sources is no reason to delete an article. Sundayclose (talk) 01:43, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Exactly! ;) NJOrozco 06:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norozco1 (talk • contribs)
 * No, the need for secondary sources is necessary for WP:GNG: ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.". The only ones provided so far are primaries such as the writeup from Sega Blog regarding Sonic, as well the convention profiles. Crystal Acids, BTVA, ANN cast announcement only provides sourcing that he does appear in the credits for the show. They do not go over his career in detail. There is none of the significant coverage presented so far, so that needs to be shown in order for this article to have a chance of staying.  <strong style="color:#606060;">AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 16:41, 30 June 2016 (UTC) updated 14:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Couldn't of said it better the myself! ;) NJOrozco 22:45, 30 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete and redirect to Doctor_Eggman. Users canvassed via this tweet. All sorts of classic Arguments to avoid above. The article has been refbombed but it's easy to tell that most of the sources are either primary or unreliable (BtVA, Soundcloud, Sonic Blog, Crystal Acids). A person is not independently notable for their own Wikipedia page just because they are "known" for something. Ostensibly that being known for something leads to actual significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) such that there would be enough secondary source content to, you know, actually write an article. Right now I'm seeing passing mentions in Animenewsnetwork sources and the rest is junk. The "delete" is since there is no information worth merging, and the redirect is because his name is prominently mentioned in the character article, so as to be a useful redirect. But not enough for an article and a shame on the canvassing. czar  18:02, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The references are there to only show that he voiced in those other shows. They do not show that they are significant secondary coverage over multiple works besides the Eggman / Sonic ones of course. They are not refbombs as they aren't there to support keep, otherwise I would have withdrawn this AFD already. <strong style="color:#606060;">AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 22:04, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * By the way, the refideas I've added to the talk page are more primaries in the form of interviews. <strong style="color:#606060;">AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 22:07, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I found one article by the school he visited: <strong style="color:#606060;">AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 23:30, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * "Refbomb" isn't only to keep articles—it's to fluff up an article to make it look like it's cited well. As an encyclopedia, we're a tertiary source of the best secondary sources. If we need to use a ton of primary/unreliable sources in order to write an article, we should be questioning the widespread notability of the subject. czar  21:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you stop being an ass about my efforts to find notable sources? I've already explained multiple times that BTVA, Crystal, ANN and other primaries only provide RS evidence that he did indeed was credited for those roles. And the primaries are just being piled on as refideas for now as few of those are able to be the secondary RS acceptable for WP:LSC It's clear from the refideas that yes, he voiced Eggman in the Sonic franchise for the bulk of his career, that it's his most famous voice acting role, he gets a ton of interviews from all sorts of sources, and that he probably has some insights and perspectives on portraying his character. I still stand on the position that this article is lacking secondaries and something to cover a second major role in another franchise, but I'm sick and tired of your assumption that filling in filmographies is refbombing. Adding an ANN cast announcement for Berserk the Golden Age is just that. It doesn't say hey the person is more notable. It works for filmography, nothing else, not GNG. <strong style="color:#606060;">AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 07:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm striking Crystal from this discussion. <strong style="color:#606060;">AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 14:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't believe is trying to "be an ass" about this (that wouldn't make sense, you both share the same stance of wanting to delete the article.) Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he's just saying "Don't be fooled by the long list of sources, there's not enough RS's with significant coverage to meet the GNG". Some editors, sadly, take a look of 20 sources and go "Wow, that's a lot. Its clearly notable!" without actually looking to see that the sources don't help meet the GNG at all. I think he's just addressing that sort of editor.  Sergecross73   msg me  13:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's exactly what I meant. AW, not sure how that can even be misconstrued as a personal affront, but I'm happy to discuss more on my/your talk page if you want (would be off-topic here). Know that there's no animosity on my end. czar  18:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete and redirect This does sound like a good solution. If enough secondary sources can be found, the article can always be recreated. Especially considering the offsite canvassing. -- ‖ Ebyabe talk - Repel All Boarders  ‖ 18:21, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd expect some canvassing given that there is a connected contributor that has edited here, and unfortunately some smearing of editors who are trying to figure this out. <strong style="color:#606060;">AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 08:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Reply How is that a good solution exacrly, cause in my opinion, I still think that we just need to give it some more time before we do anything else, ya know?! :/ NJOrozco 19:32, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps but since the AFD will be open of a least a week that should be enough time to find the necessary sources to demonstrate that he passes the notability requirements.--94.90.174.2 (talk) 20:55, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It's had enough time—no one has produced sources. If someone finds sources in the future, the content can always be restored. But based on what I see, I doubt it czar  21:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well don't start doubting yourself about this, cause if you give a single shred of doubt, then it's the same as giving up on this article, and we're not about to give up, nor give any doubt on this article, not by a long shot! ;) NJOrozco 23:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If that's supposed to be a threat, I am sure an administrator will fully protect the redirect, so an article won't be reestablished until he meets our guidelines. Instead of saying empty threats, follow Czar's advise and find the sources needed to rescue this article. Meinnaples (talk) 02:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete and redirect to Doctor_Eggman. I was so tempted to press the "keep" button until I saw the references being used in the article. Other than Anime News Network, and Lulu.com this needs more second party sources. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:23, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note the Lulu.com one is a secondary and was added there to confirm that he was the only one from the previous Sonic cast that was retained. The Sega Blog one is a primary, coming from the Sega Community Manager. But again, that is for Eggman, which isn't the notability problem for this article. <strong style="color:#606060;">AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 08:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete and redirect note the Anime News Network sources are casting releases that doesn't meet our criteria of "significant coverage", and the lulu.com source is one sentence long. Meinnaples (talk) 02:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Coverage for Eggman isn't what is in question. <strong style="color:#606060;">AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 08:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete and redirect. Note that this is not a "redirect" vote; please delete this article then create a redirect. SST  flyer  03:28, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Why do that? Are you trying to nuke its talk page history and logs of its discussions? <strong style="color:#606060;">AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 22:24, 5 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Do you want to take ownership and userify this article? Or move it into draft? Draft may be promising but it'll still need a lot of help to find those secondary sources. <strong style="color:#606060;">AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 07:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I did got one of the articles back, and still trying to find sources for Brianne Siddall & Janice Kawaye, like any video games, anime, and animated cast announcements or confirmations, but taking ownership and userify of this article as well, I'd say that I'm already keeping track, and trying to edit these articles, and I don't need another one to keep track, so why can't you do it exactly?! :/ NJOrozco 22:04, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, can you please sign your posts with 4 tildes? You've been editing here since June 2014, you should know that by now. That way people can respond to you properly. Thank you. -- ‖ Ebyabe talk - State of the Union  ‖ 07:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Just so you know,, I always sign my posts with 4 tildes, but if it's the signature that's the problem, then I'll go and fix it, and maybe people can respond to me properly, just like you wanted. Oh, and you're welcome by the way! ;) NJOrozco 22:04, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect Lots of credits but this has become about one specific role. A role that still needs secondary sources.SephyTheThird (talk) 10:28, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Huh? Is the notability of Eggman now in question? Ridiculous. <strong style="color:#606060;">AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 22:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You can say that again?! :/ NJOrozco 02:30, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Let's put that down to me posting from my phone. But critical coverage discussing him in that role would go a long way. SephyTheThird (talk) 10:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete and Redirect clearly as there's still nothing convincing for his own notable article. SwisterTwister   talk  06:31, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Neutral but just looking at the article he looks notable enough to me (so --> keep). Note that if this guy was playing cricket, see WP:NCRICKET, he would have romped it in for N, which allows inclusion for one major appearance even if that appearance was a complete failure. Aoziwe (talk) 11:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Proposal I suggest a new rule for AFD discussions: If the AFD discussion becomes twice as long as the article being discussed then it is an automatic no consensus .. and hence a keep .. ?  Aoziwe (talk) 11:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Reply Wow, that's actually a very good proposal that you came up with, and yet at the same time, I can't exactly argue with that kind of logical idea, so I have to agree with you on that proposal dude! :o NJOrozco 12:01, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Even if that proposal made any sort of sense (it doesn't), you don't propose new "rules" for discussions mid-discussion, much in the same way that you don't make up new laws in the middle of a court case. Its neither the time nor the place. Sergecross73   msg me  12:37, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Rules about rules ?  Sorry but I could not resist.  Yes I agree.  Rest assured I was not seriously making the proposal now.  (Yes there a re proper places for such.)  Subtly what I was really saying is that if people put as much effort into the article as they put into some AFD arguments, for and against, the article may well be well on the way to being a GA !?  I was also trying to make the point that at what point, well before WP:LAME, does an AFD discussion need to to stop relative to the size/value of the article ?   Twice was just an arbitrary number for the sake of a point, and not meant to be a quantification.  But yes I do think AFDers do need to step back sometimes and have a look at our rules.  Cheers.   Aoziwe (talk) 13:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't said it any other way! ;) NJOrozco 13:12, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The size of the discussion isn't really factored in to things. These discussions run for 7 days typically, and if there is a consensus, action is taken, if not, its usually listed once or twice to see if more people comment. Sergecross73   msg me  13:38, 6 July 2016 (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.