Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pierre Ébert


 * 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 17:52, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Pierre Ébert

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Biography of an actor, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NACTOR. As always, actors do not all get an automatic free notability pass just for having acting roles per se -- the notability test is not passed just by copy-pasting a list of roles from his IMDb profile, but by showing evidence that some of the roles have been externally validated as significant, such as by winning or being nominated for major acting awards or being the subject of a WP:GNG-worthy volume of reliable source media coverage about his performances. But the problem here is that nearly all of his acting roles were as minor or unnamed bit part characters (my personal favourite being "cadavre", which means exactly what it looks like) -- he only ever had one role (Les Bougon) potentially significant enough to count for something toward NACTOR #1, but even NACTOR #1 demands multiple significant roles rather than just one. Plus there's only one footnote in the article, which isn't enough to get him over GNG all by itself, but there aren't any better sources that can be pulled over from the French article, as besides the same footnote that is already here the only other ones being used there are unreliable entertainment blogs that aren't support for notability at all, still covering him exclusively in the context of his death rather than showing career coverage during his lifetime. And even on a ProQuest search for older sourcing that wouldn't Google, I found literally jack spit, getting just one coincidental name match on a different person with the same name and absolutely zero hits about this one. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have a lot more than just one hit of real media coverage about his work. Bearcat (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - I find the nominator's position and explanation to be well argued and persuasive. Fieari (talk) 07:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - has acted in some films, but he isn't in the main cast, and no RS to indicate notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:57, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per the very well stated reasoning of the nominator. The sourcing is miles away from GNG, and one role that just maybe is at the level of being substantial is just not enough. Wikipedia comes way too close to being a comprehensive database of all actors for some time periods in some national level film production creation endevors. I am sure there are a great many actor articles on Wikipedia in need of being deleted. I want to applaud the nominator for nominating this one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:48, 23 January 2022 (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.