Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robbie Drebitt


 * 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. Fails WP:ENT and WP:GNG. Jayjg (talk) 05:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Robbie Drebitt

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non notable actor. No evidence of the coverage by independent reliable sources required to meet WP:GNG Nuttah (talk) 15:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC) Showzampa (talk) 20:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as TOO SOON (if ever). This actor's nearly non-existant career fails WP:ENT and lack of coverage fails WP:GNG. Sorry Robbie.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: Fails WP:ENT. Joe Chill (talk) 20:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't Delete I changed "actor" on his page to webseries actor, comparing Robbie to a hollywood celebrity like ..John Travolta is comparing apples to oranges. Adding up the amount of views he's received in both the webseries S.E.X. (Star Explorer Xenolith) and Spellfury equals 884,042. That's quite impressive (and notable) for a new medium like the webseries. Even looking at MichealQShmidt's mention of WP:ENT, in there it says "Has a large fan base" which I believe Robbie does from the numbers.
 * Comment Claiming that he has a fanbase is not enough, you need to provide reliable sources to prove it. Likewise with establishing notability, here and on other article up for deletion, you have to show significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, e.g. a newspaper (preferably at least one national) articles about Robbie Drebitt, Spellfury and so on. Nuttah (talk) 20:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment Old school Newspaper? (that are all going out of business by the way) They don't even know what a webseries is, they wouldn't even cover the most notable of weberies'. If you look through "the Guild's" early wiki history, they were declared notable with an IMDB link and a website. We are talking about a "webseries" actor and Spellfury is a "webseries", not a traditional tv show. Showzampa (talk) 13:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment Nuttah are you saying wired.com, Ain't It Cool News and tubefilter aren't reliable sources? I would say a webseries actor that has 884,042 (Spellfury views plus S.E.X. views) views of shows he's been in, one he was the lead actor in, the second a huge supporting character (lead villian) has a large fan base, their youtube channel has 15,000 friends and over 6,000 subscribers, are you not counting them? Important Youtube has given Spellfury it's own special showpage at[], these can't be created by the public, "the guild" has also been given this honor, but notable webseries like "legend of neil" and "riese the series" don't have them. It allows The guild and Spellfury to come up in the listings of traditional television shows, Youtube has deemed Spellfury notable because of the strong viewership of the series and fanbase. Remember we're discussing whether or not Spellfury is a notable "webseries", not a tv show.

Comment Added an article that was in the EMC Perth Newspaper about Spellfury and Robbie Drebitt. For additional notablility as a webseries actor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.158.101 (talk) 00:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC) Showzampa (talk) 14:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment To satisfy wiki editors that want old school newspaper references added better link to full page newspaper article about Spellfury and Rob to show notability. Showzampa (talk) 16:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 03:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
 * Came very, very close to deleting this, but in the interest of reaching the right result, the new sources ought to be evaluated by someone. Courcelles (talk) 03:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Keep because the webseries Spellfury is notable and the newspaper article says "Gordon met some of the key people involved in the production of Spellfury today. Those key individuals include the star of the show, actress Julie O'Halloran, who plays the role of "half-elf" Druinia, and Robbie Drebitt, who plays evil sorcerer Kruskull." + the wired article Toronto23 (talk) 16:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC) — Toronto23 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comments Kudos to User:Courcelles for relisting and allowing my bit of rsesearch into some of the sources offered by Showzampa.
 * Wired.com's (Wired News) is a branch of Wired (magazine)... owned by Condé Nast Publications, with international editons Wired UK and Wired Italia. It appears to have both the editorial oversight and the reputation for accuracy that should allow it to be seen as a reliable source for technology subjects.
 * Ain't It Cool News, appears to be respected within their industry as having reliable articles and reviews, interspersed within gossip and annonymous reports. If a specific review or article in question has a byline, it can be presumed that it went through editorial oversight.  If such do not have a byline or editorial acknowledement, then one can presume that particular article as unreliable. Each proffered item must be looked at on a case-by-case basis.
 * Tubefilter is one of those cases of a reliable "blog"... in actuality a site with staff, editorial oversight, and a reputation for accuracy within their industry... not actually being a blog in its strictest sense, but using that self-proclaimed user-friendly label when publishing their researched and authored articles as a means to encourage comments from readers as a kind of instant feedback. The newcomer to this pack, they appear to be already well respected within their industry.  So... an authored Tubefilter article or review can be considered generaly reliable, but the reader's comments in response are not.
 * This said, and while any article needs to be looked at for specific suitability, being from one of these sites is not the deathknell.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources as required by the general notability criteria. This is made obvious by the article itself which in the main is not even about the subject of the article but the series they are associated with. Notability is not inherited. Guest9999 (talk) 14:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. My research ito the sources being used might allow a few of them to be considered in some way... perhaps for articles on projects where this actor might then be mentioned as part of cast, but in agreement, there is no significant coverage of the subject himself, even though there may be some toward his projects.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 17:09, 27 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.