Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pierre Kirby


 * 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. looks like the sources offered have not been accepted as reliable so the consensus is to delete Spartaz Humbug! 16:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Pierre Kirby

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Subject does not meet WP:GNG and/or WP:PEOPLE. Primary sources used in creating this article are Internet Movie Database (IMDb) and Rotten Tomatoes (RT). They list films by the subject, but do not discuss the subject in detail. The films themselves are not exactly notable (WP:NOTFILM). Have searched for sources about the subject, and have found more sites that list films by the subject (and even then they are not as complete as IMDb and RT; meaning the other sites list 1 or 2 films). Other sources added to determine nobility are a blog and fan site (or a self proclaimed movie critic). These are not reliable sources Akerans (talk) 22:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

According to WP:PEOPLE, people are notable if they have a "large fan base or significant 'cult' following". Pierre Kirby is one of the most well known actors to play in Godfrey Ho's exploitation films, and he has gained a very large cult following. Also, it says that he's notable if he acted in a number of notable films, which he did according to WP:NOTFILM. Two of his films, "Zombie vs. Ninja" and "Thunder of Gigantic Serpent", were even notable enough to have articles here on Wikipedia. As for not having enough sources, that's being worked on. I'm going through Hong Kong film databases right now, so don't delete the article just yet. Rockhead126 (talk) 00:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete He clearly has no notability as a martial artist. The article is a BLP with no reliable sources.  The two films mentioned above have both been tagged for a lack of notability and lack of reliable sources.  There's also no reliable source to show he has "a very large cult following." Papaursa (talk) 03:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - the wild claims can not be verified. Even at IMdB, it says he has had several small parts in minor films. Bearian (talk) 20:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep For Now - Purging the thing now doesn't make much sense. If this had come up before the Cinema Snob started talking about it, I'd agree with the others that the article doesn't have a lot of content. Post-Snob, though, there's a lot of people looking for information on the guy, and what better onus is there for editors to find stuff than a page that has something along the lins of "hey, this thing needs more sources"? I know, I know, the fact that I'm not linking to any policies is prolly going to turn one (or more) editor into a Red Lantern, but basically: keep the page, since a fairly popular web media program just started shining a big light on the guy, and rather than purging the thing, let it grow. But what do I know? (Yes, I know your answer: "the policies". But pfft.) 24.15.168.110 (talk) 04:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I can't find any reliable sources that show notability and speculating that he's going to be more popular is WP:CRYSTAL and still may not add any reliable sources. Astudent0 (talk) 13:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * weak keep there appears to be one source discussing him in great detail, another in some detail. Don't know the area well enough to say if they are RSes or not.  Hobit (talk) 15:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Neither blogs nor IMDB are usually considered reliable sources. The current policy on BLPs is that they must have reliable sources or they can be put up for BLPPROD, which is separate from the usual PROD (see WP:BLP).  Why did you remove the BLPPROD for this article if you didn't know whether or not the sources were reliable? Astudent0 (talk) 16:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * BLPPROD is only for articles that don't have sources of any type. IMDB is fine for that purpose.  This one did at the time the BLPPROD was added.  In any case, the problem with WP:RS is it often isn't clear if something is reliable or not.  When in doubt I'd prefer discussion over just assuming one way or the other.   Hobit (talk) 19:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, it does say you need a reliable source. Here's the quote from WP:BLP--"a new proposed deletion process was established, requiring all BLPs created after March 18, 2010 to have at least one reliable source".  That said, I'm find with an AfD discussion, although the article still needs reliable sources.  If claims can't be verified, they shouldn't be there. Papaursa (talk) 01:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and CINEMA NOCTURNA appears to be a RS. The blog actually looks quite good as blogs go and might be reliable in this context. Hobit (talk) 19:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * From the Nocturna site itself, I finally got my calling though, I wanted to create a fan based web community of sorts that catered to films that we here in North America. [...] Though my knowledge is surpassed by others that would be my next step, to assemble a core group of fans with great knowledge of many of these films. In other words, its a fan site or WP:SPS. Akerans (talk) 20:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It has a group of writers/contributors on staff. I'm not saying it's the NYT, but just because one person founded it doesn't make it a SPS. Hobit (talk) 21:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not what I meant. I was pointing out the fact the creator considers his writers/contributors as movie fans. For this SPS to be considered reliable his writers/contributors need to work in the relevant field, and he has demonstrated they do not. Hope that clears any confusion. Akerans (talk) 22:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you cite the quote you gave (work in the relevant field). It seems like an odd requirement. For example a NYT's sports writer doesn't work as an athlete.  A movie critic doesn't normally create movies.  And nothing requires a RS to actually get paid to be a RS as far as I know, but I'm willing to be wrong.  Help? Hobit (talk) 00:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Work in the relevant field is from WP:SPS (paragraph two). I take that to mean, for example, a movie critic writes for NYT, and contributes to a fan site in his/her spare time. While they are not being paid to work on the fan site, they have worked in the relevant field, established themselves as a creditable source, and are more qualified to write about movies. Akerans (talk) 01:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I'm arguing that it isn't a SPS. The authors and the person controlling the content appear to (generally) be different. Hobit (talk) 07:58, 23 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.