Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orion Pitts


 * 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. THis is a WP:BLP that contains not one reliable source at the end of the AfD, which makes deletion mandatory. Can be editorially redirected if mentioned in the target article.  Sandstein  05:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Orion Pitts

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Unsourced BLP. Prod contested. No significant coverage found. Michig (talk) 16:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

 D r e a m Focus  13:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC) As I said in my first comment in this AFD, his roles in Initial D and Peach Girl are the two which had a significant role that I found after some searching. Also, if the places that sell something only list a few of the voice actors, then those they mention must do the significant roles/main characters.  D r e a m Focus  00:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:ENTERTAINER. Most of this person's work seems to be for supporting cast, however he does play a major character in Peach Girl.  Playing a significant part in a notable series, makes you notable.  I believe being an ADR Engineer in two notable series is a significant role as well.  Has a long career in a large number of notable series.
 * Keep: Passes WP:ENT. I don't see where it says that dubbed shows don't count in the sentence, "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." The dubbed anime is notable as well not just the original. Joe Chill (talk) 15:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Redirect to Peach Girl (see the discussion below, I think the reasoning for the change will be clear.)  Doesn't pass WP:ENT until and unless it's reliably sourced, since WP:NRVE.  Further, WP:ENT is part of a larger set of statements which is introduced by the following paragraph:
 * People who meet any of the following standards are likely to meet the over-arching general notability criteria. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. This standard is a "shorthand" approach to avoid extended discussions where a reasonable presumption exists that sources may be found.
 * Thus, WP:ENT is a "shorthand", and the lack of verifiable sources, as per policy is an overriding factor. As I have been unable to find reliable, secondary sources as required, I am left at delete, but additional sources are, as always, welcome. --joe deckertalk to me 04:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That bit was added in by Aaron Brenneman a few weeks ago, and has been removed and readded by different editors, without any consensus that it should be there. I just removed it again.  You can't just decide that all secondary guidelines are meaningless after all these years of them being used.   D r e a m Focus  09:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting, I was unware of that, thanks for the correction. I don't believe, however, that that applies to WP:NRVE, which is, as far as I know, still guiding.  For the record, I didn't "just decide" that notability requires verifiable evidence, instead, that has always been my understanding of the meaning of the policies as a whole. I understand and respect that you disagree.
 * Moreover, accepting the wording change that you made entirely, I still read the text that's present above WP:ENT the same way I did before. From my reading of policy, you have reverted a change which is clearer, but no different in meaning, than what existed before. I suspect we disagree on that, too. *shrug* --joe deckertalk to me 17:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Not certain when that was added.  But check the top part of that page. "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below, and is not excluded under What Wikipedia is not. A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right."   D r e a m Focus  21:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, there are several conflicting principles in our guidelines, to be sure. That's why we get to have so much fun here!  :)
 * I first remember ending up on the other side of a WP:NRVE argument some months back, so I don't think it's recent, but I haven't checked the history. It seems to me to be a very logical corollary of WP:V. I don't believe that a claim of notability under any guideline is meaningful unless it could be backed by a reliable source, and one that's clear enough that there's no doubt as to it's meaning. To make a silly example, if I write an article on myself that says "I'm the queen of England", or "I'm the best photographer in the world.", that's all well and good, but it's a claim of notability, not notability itself. And it's the actual notability that confers the presumption of keeping an article, not the claim of it, in my view. Note that that's still quite different than saying that SNGs have no meaning, since there's no requirement here that the coverage be in-depth, independent, and so on, save to the extent that you need those attributes to really reliably verify the claim. --joe deckertalk to me 21:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You have to prove the information is valid under the policy of WP:VERIFIABILITY of course. But primary sources are fine for that, as long as you have no valid reason to doubt it.  WP:ENTERTAINER says that voice actors are notable if the person "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions."  Is there any doubt the person has met this requirement?  Is there any sincere doubt that the information about what characters they played on what series is not accurate?  Do the credits in the series, as well as the official website listing the cast, and even Amazon and other places that sell it listing this person in the series they were in, not prove without any reasonable doubt they were in them?   See?  Check the Amazon "Product Details" section for one of the series he's been in.  Name right there.    D r e a m Focus  22:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:ENTERTAINER #1 requires not only that the person have a role in a series (and yes, primary evidence seems fine to me as far as that goes), but also, as the quote you provide notes, that the series is notable and that the role is significant. The series are notable enough. Are two or more of the roles significant?  I could be convinced, but I actually did try and look, and I didn't get the impression that most were.  I attempted to go to the primary article for every work in Pitts' filmography and searched for the character name we list, I figure significant roles are probably mentioned at least once in the series plot summaries, that seemed a reasonable guess. I got hits on two, Kairi in Peach Girl (which sure looks significant) and a single episode appearance in Mushishi (which doesn't, at least the role doesn't)  The Pitts article lede suggests the School Rumble role, which again, doesn't list the character or the actress in its main plot summary, and in the separate list of characters, relegates the role past the "primary" and "secondary" characters to "other characters" past around, making this role a foreign-language dub of a voice acting role of the, at best, sixteenth or so most important character in the series.  Would be your choice for (after Kairi) the second most significant role after Kairi, or is there another role I should be looking at more carefully? --joe deckertalk to me 23:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm out the door for the evening, but I'll look again at Sakamoto.  That role is not, apparently, major enough to make the main Initial D article plot summary, but perhaps our article on Initial D is misleading. Will revisit in he morning. Thanks. --joe deckertalk to me 00:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * List_of_Initial_D_characters_and_teams My mistake. The character was only in two episodes. List_of_Initial_D_episodes Not all the teams are major to the series it seems.  Many of his roles in various things are listed as "various voices", so he did a number of characters in a lot of the episodes for different series.  That seems significant.   D r e a m Focus  01:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries, I do want to look and see if there's more coverage on the role elsewhere. BTW, I did make a change above, while it's little comfort, I'm sure, at the very least there's more than enough for a redirect to Peach Girl. --joe deckertalk to me 18:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete unable to find any coverage other than brief credits. Appealing to subject-specific notability guidelines does not circumvent the fact that WP:V requires that there be independent reliable sources on the topic of each article. Hut 8.5 10:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete notability not establishedCurb Chain (talk) 12:57, 14 August 2011 (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.