Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rodd Wolff


 * 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. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 01:41, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Rodd Wolff

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

My PROD removed with the basis of "deletion without merit" but the listed concerns were in fact genuine, the listed information and sources are not satisfying the needed notability, they are trivial and unconvincing, and considering this questionability is obvious, it shouldn't have been accepted from AfC, especially when he's literally only a background stuntman whose IMDb lists trivial works and, as we know, these people rarely get actual attention, let alone a convincing article. SwisterTwister  talk  18:51, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

--- Reply from: Zootsuit1941

I am in disagreement with SwisterTwister original PROD (and more recent AfD) for many reasons. I tried to add these comments when I deleted the PROD, but did not see a space to do that. I am a newby at this Wikipedia process, but I’m trying to learn. So I will put my comments here.

Here are the reasons I am disagreeing with SwisterTwister on the original PROD.

Number 1, SwisterTwister’s statement of "nothing actually suggestive of independent notability and substance” is simply not true and without merit. The fact that Rodd Wolff was inducted into the Hollywood Stuntman's Hall of Fame attest to his notability among his peers.  Being inducted into the Stuntman's Hall of Fame is a huge honor for a stuntman.  This is the same organization that has honored other notable stuntmen like Yakima Canutt, Jock Mahoney, Hal Needhamm, Ben Johnson, etc. and who are also included in Wikipedia.  Also, the fact that Rodd Wolff received a large write-up in the  Gene Scott Freese book titles "Hollywood Stunt Performers, 1910s-1970s: A Biographical Dictionary” also confirms Rodd Wolff’s notability. Both these honors are based on the body of work that Rodd Wollf has accomplished in his career.

Number 2, SwisterTwister’s statement of “his filmography only shows trivial background jobs as a stuntman” is not a relevant comment. The purpose of the filmography was merely to give a list of some of the movies that Rodd Wolff work on, not to document the exact details of his contributions to these films. To characterise Rodd Wolff’s background as trival is certainly a subjective statement. Certainly nothing trivial about Rodd Wolff's work in The Getaway, Miracle at Sage Creek. Rambo III, Arizona Heat, or Winston Churchill: The Wilderness Years, to name just a few.

Number 3, SwisterTwister’s statement of “none of it insinuating his own convincing article,” I did not understand what this statement was referring to, so can not respond to it.

Number 4, SwisterTwister’s statement of “the listed sources are simply mere mentions or trivial” are again mostly without merit, as being inducted into the Hollywood Stuntman’s Hall of Fame and being included in the Gene Scott Freese book certainly can not be considered as trivial. True that at least one of the other listed sources (e.g. Local Board" Sag-Aftra.org) might be considered a mere mention, but that is true of a lot of sources, just a way of documenting a statement in the article.

Number 5, SwisterTwister’s statement of “my own searches are simply finding this, hence this should not have been accepted with such questionability” is difficult for me to respond to as I don’t know what searches the nominator has done or what his basic knowledge of the history of Hollywood stuntment is. I know there have been many newspaper articles written on Rodd Wollf that I couldn’t reference in the write-up as these articles are only available throught the newspapers via a paid subscription, and would not make good references for a Wikipedia article.

Also, SwisterTwister’s more recent AfD statment of “he's (Rodd Wolff) literally only a background stuntman whose IMDb lists trivial works and, as we know, these people rarely get actual attention, let alone a convincing article” is puzzling to me and I’m not sure how to comment on that.

So in summary, although I appreciate the input from SwisterTwiste, I do not feel the recommendation of deleteing this article is valid.

Again, I’m a newby at this Wikipedia process, I’m learning as I go and if the above is not in the proper place, then my apologies, but at this time I don’t know where to place it, ...I'm a 75 year old retired engineer, but I’m learning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zootsuit1941 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 14 November 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * The nominators statement that "these people rarely get actual attention" may be true, but in this particular case this person has got actual attention from the book published by McFarland cited in the article. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:51, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - The best and simplest comment I will say is "Hollywood Stuntman's Hall of Fame" is not a sole basis of notability as, although it is quite imaginable it's a major achievement for stuntpeople, it's not something considered notable for Wikipedia. As for the book source, none of that amounts to notability since it's only for his stuntman work, we would've needed additional to ensure convincing substance. Therefore, simply stating the one Hall of Fame is enough, is not satisfying or convincingly meeting the notability concerns listed and they still apply. SwisterTwister   talk  07:36, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have added 2 different books as references that address the skills and notability of Rodd Wolff as a stuntman. I have also added additional information on a few (3) of the roles that Rodd Wolf has had in movies/TV shows, showing that the stunts/roles Rodd Wolff had in these movies/TV shows were not “trival.” I will add more when I have the time.  Zootsuit1941 (talk) 23:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete -- largely uncited vanity on a subject that has no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:08, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - This subject (Rodd Wolff) absolutely does meet the criteria of notability as defined by Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline). There are two reliable sources referenced (Gene Scott Freese. Hollywood Stunt Performers and The Heart of a Cowboy) in this writeup that include significant coverage of the subject. As far as “no indication of significance," the subject was inducted into the Hollywood Stuntman's Hall of Fame, that is extremely significant.  Plus he has a body of work that covers 50 years as covered in the writeup.
 * As far as the comment “largely uncited vanity,” I’m not sure what that means, but this article is NOT about me, so there is no vanity involved. Plus Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion) states “The accusation "VANITY" should be avoided, and is not in itself a reason for deletion…and it is extremely discourteous ... to speculate that the author of some ...biography is the subject himself or herself.”  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zootsuit1941 (talk • contribs) 03:50, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: A general comment.  I had 5 photos included in the article that increased credibility, all showing significant stunts and acting scenes that most people would be familiar with, but they were deletd due to Copyright violations.  Based on what I’ve been reading in Wikipedia articles (and viewing in other Wikipedia articles) the 5 photos should all be permissible due to either not being copyrighted, in the public domain content, fair use, etc.  Apparently I didn’t correctly provide all the necessary information when I uploaded them.  Uploading photos for a Wikipedia article is a very complicated process, at least for a newby, a person almost has to be a copyright lawyer to plow through this stuff. But I will attempt to reload the 5 photos properly, although it may take some time and a lot of reading. Zootsuit1941 (talk) 20:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: One more geneal comment.  I realize this AfD is not a voting process but I feel it is important to note that two previous Wikipedia editors have accepted this article as being notable. (1)  Appears to pass notability now. I am leaving this for another reviewer because I have history with this draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:46, 12 November 2016 (UTC) and (2) (Shadowowl moved page Draft:Rodd Wolff to Rodd Wolff: Publishing accepted Articles for creation submission (AFCH 0.9)). Zootsuit1941 (talk) 21:17, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:58, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete/Draftify Sorry, but it fails to establish notability. The only sources that mention him significantly are self-published. It baffles me that this was allowed through AfC in this state, but I'd like to hear what the accepting editors have to say.  '''- Je rg li ng ''' PC Load Letter 20:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment and question for Jergling: Thanks for your input.  This may be the wrong place to ask a question, but I’m confused by your comment of "self-published," at least in the case of McFarland Publishing.  Book publishing is not something I’m familiar with but from what I’ve read about McFarland Publishing is, “McFarland & Company, Inc. is a book publisher of primarily academic and adult nonfiction.  Its target markets are libraries and direct mailing to enthusiasts in niche categories.”  This is from the Wikipedia site https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:McFarland.
 * Info from the McFarland web site says “It does not cost anything to publish with McFarland. McFarland has not ever and will not ever take any payment or subvention from authors.”
 * Wikipedia’s definition of Self-publishing is "Self-publishing is the publication of any book or other media by its author without the involvement of an established publisher." From:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-publishing.  This doesn't seem to fit McFarland Publishing.
 * Another Wikipedia site states “Self-published works are those in which the author and publisher are the same.” From:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_self-published_works.  This doesn't seem to fit McFarland Publishing.
 * Wikipedia contributor 86.17.222.157 commented in the AfD seemed to imply that he thought the book published by McFarland was a respected source.
 * So my question is, is a book published by McFarland considered to be “self-published?” I’m not necessarily saying that comment is not true, because I don’t really know.  But it seems to me the author of the referenced McFarland book does have an established publisher and the author and the publisher are NOT the same.Zootsuit1941 (talk) 03:04, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - Even then, that one book is still not going to establish notability, especially for such a field that is rarely classified as notable for Wikipedia, unless there's literally national and international attention, and not simply triviality. The fact it was accepted by one user and commented by another, is not defending or saving it at all from AfD, which is a community listing, and if deleted, is closed as such, not simply because of 2 past users. Therefore, with there only being the still trivial claim of "he's in a hall of fame", which although may be significant in his field, is still not quite what convinces an encyclopedia article. There's simply such questionability here that it suggests there's simply not a genuinely convincing article. SwisterTwister   talk  08:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - For what it is worth, I have added an additional book as reference material to the Rodd Wolff article, another book by Gene Scott Freese (McFarland Publishing), this one titled Jock Mahoney: The Life and Films of a Hollywood Stuntman. Although the book is about Jock Mahoney, there are references to Rodd Wolff in the book.  How Jock Mahoney met Rodd Wolff when Rodd was just a kid, how Jock Mahoney helped Rodd out once Rodd started his stuntman’s career, etc.  I’ve quoted a portion in the Wikipedia article.  I’ve also added some additional information on Rodd Wolff from the Arizona Republic, an American daily newspaper circulated throughout Arizona, it is the state's largest newspaper (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Arizona_Republic).  Unfortunately all the Arizona Republic articles on Rodd Wollf are online as a paid subscription only, so I can’t add a hot link to these sites in the Wikipedia article.  Also, in my opinion being inducted into the Hollywood Stuntmen's Hall of Fame is definitely no “trivial claim.”  Many stuntmen/actors listed in Wikipedia articles take great pride in this honor.  For example, Wikipedia articles on Dean Smith, Clayton Moore, David L Boushey, Brad Harris, Carey Loftin, Buddy Joe Hooker, Bronco McLoughlin, George P. Wilbur to name a few, include this honor in the write-ups.Zootsuit1941 (talk) 22:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: As the author of the Wikipedia article I’d like to address this issue of notability one more time. First, the article was approved by two prior editors (Robert McClenon & Shadowowl).  Secondly, the article has been greatly improved since the AfD was created; it’s no longer the same article.  For example, I have added three additional books as references, books that all speak to Wolff’s notability.  I have also referenced one (of many) state newspaper articles that feature Wolff and his stunt/acting career, plus an article by the United Press International on Wolff.  And I have added additional description on the significance of Wolff contribution in a few of the movies listed for him.  I simply disagree with the AfD nominator’s position but have tried to address them by adding more information as far as notability.  I disagree with Wikipedia editor K.e.coffman’s “Delete” vote because he feels the article is “vanity", it is not “vanity” as I have explained in a previous Comment above.  I also disagree with Wikipedia editor Jergling’s “Delete” vote comment that McFarland Publishing was a “self-published” source; it is not a “self-published” source as I have also explained in a previous Comment above.  Plus one other Wikipedia editor (86.17.222.157) disagreed with the AfD nominator and made the comment "The subject has got actual attention from the book published by McFarland cited in the article."  That was just a Comment and not an actual "Keep" vote, but pretty close I think.  With that said, I’d like to discuss some specific Wikipedia criteria for notability. In order to avoid one long paragraph, I’m going to organize them down into individual bullets, as I don’t know a better way at this time.
 * Comment continued from above:  From Wikipedia, Notability is defined as “People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.”  I have listed multiple published secondary sources that I feel are reliable, intellectually independent of each other and independent of the subject.  I feel the best example is the Gene Scott Freese "Hollywood Stunt Performers, 1910s-1970s: A Biographical Dictionary.”  This was published by McFarland Publishing and from what I can determine is a book publisher of primarily academic and adult nonfiction.  This book is a biographical dictionary on stunt performers who created some of the cinema's greatest action scenes without credit or recognition.  The book is 356 pages and includes articles on over 600 men and women.  And Wolff receives significant coverage in this book (page and a half).  In addition to this book, Wolff also has significant coverage in another McFarland published book by Gene Scott Freese titled "Jock Mahoney: The Life and Films of a Hollywood Stuntman." In total, I have referenced 4 books, and 2 newspaper articles in the current list of 12 references I have included in the article (there were only 4 when the AfD was created).  I believe the current version of the article meets the Wikipedia requirement of “...significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources…”
 * Comment continued from above: From Wikipedia (BLP), "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times.”  Wolff has received many awards for his stunts, rodeo and show efforts, but the most impressive one has to be his 2002 induction into the Hollywood Stuntmen's Hall of Fame.  The AfD nominator claims this as “trivial” and “not something considered notable for Wikipedia.”  I strongly disagree; it is a great honor bestowed on only relative few (244) people.  I have also discussed this two times in previous Comments above.  I believe the Hollywood Stuntmen's Hall of Fame induction meets the Wikipedia well-known and significant award or honor requirement.
 * Comment continued from above:  From Wikipedia (BLP): “The person has an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography or similar publication.”  I have googled “Dictionary of National Biography” but still don’t know what that is.  But Wolff has a page and a half in one of the references in the article, the Gene Scott Freese "Hollywood Stunt Performers, 1910s-1970s: A Biographical Dictionary.”  I believe this meets the Wikipedia Dictionary requirement.
 * Comment continued from above:  From Wikipedia (Entertainment):  “Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.”  I have attempted to describe in the article, the significant stunt/actor roles Wolff made contributions to in four film/TV efforts he was in (Charro, Masterpiece Theater production of Winston Churchill: The Wilderness Years, Rambo III, Universal Soldiers and The Getaway).  These were not "trivial works” as described in the AfD, but I did add the information after the creation of this AfD.  I can certainly add more information on additional movies and TV shows, but the question is, how many do I need to do? I had added 5 photos from movie promotional material (which I felt were fair use) and some video screen shots that I also felt were fair use.  But they were deleted due to copyright violations.  I believe I just didn’t fill out the paper work properly when I uploaded the photos.  But they added greatly to the notability of this article.  For example, one of the photos was from the 1969 Elvis Presley movie “Charro.”  A reader of the Wikipedia article would immediately think, “Oh I remember that scene where Elvis breaks a wild black stallion, so Wolff is the guy in this movie that actually rode that wild horse, what an amazing scene that was!”  Or “So Wolff was the guy that had the shootout with Alec Baldwin and Kim Basinger in The Getaway and fell down the flight of stairs, what an exicting scene that was!   Something to that effect anyway.  Same on the other 3 photos that were deleted. I believe the information in this article meets the Wikipedia requirement of “Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.”
 * Summary of all the above Comments: This article has been revised and greatly improved to address the concerns of the nominator of the AfD and now certainly meets the notability requirements of Wikipedia.Zootsuit1941 (talk) 23:53, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - Nearly half of the listed sources are literally only trivial mentions including as part of listings, it's not significant nor convincing for notability. WP:NOT is important as it in fact be used over WP:BASIC or WP:GNG which are not policy, but WP:NOT in fact is. This current article has only had 1 significant claim and that's a Hall of Fame. Simply because a person familiar with him may search him here is not a convincing basis of keeping an article especially if it's not satisfying policy WP:NOT. Also, the "has had significant roles" is not applicable as he's only an stuntman, not an actor, hence he's only a background worker.
 * The actors notability will not apply to non-actors since they are simply background works such as stuntpeople, not actually part of the main cast. As it is, some of the listed sources such as #7, 8 and 9 are literally his own profiles! Because the only current significant claim is a Hall of Fame, we cannot accept an article that is still so unconvincing in considerations of actual coverage, and the current ones will simply not cut it as they are not major independent news sources. As it is, his filmography itself only lists "stunts", "stunts coordinator" and "uncredited", all trivial background works, not significant as an actor at all. SwisterTwister   talk  05:04, 25 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment to above SwisterTwister Comment: SwisterTwister, thanks for your above comments, but I respectfully disagree with just about everything you write.  I’ll address each one as a separate bullet item.
 * (1) As to your comment of "only one significant claim (Hall of Fame)."  I agree with you 100% in that being inducted into the Hollywood Stuntmen’s Hall of Fame is significant (outstanding as a matter of fact!), but that was mentioned in the article only as a major award.  The main claim for notability is Wolff's large body of work as a stuntman over 50 years, making significant contributions to some very significant movies and TV shows.
 * (2) Your comment of “significant roles is not applicable as he’s only a stuntman, not an actor, hence he’s only a background worker” is not accurate.  Only a stuntman?  The stuntman is a highly trained professional, whose job is to act out the difficult actions moves or scenes that actors and actresses are not able to do, due to the danger involved,  Stunts can make a movie not only exciting, but also profitable. Action films, in fact, make up the majority of box-office hits.  For example, think how less exciting the 1969 Elvis Presley movie Charro would have been without the scene where Elvis (actually stuntman Rodd Wolff) lassos a wild black stallion out in the desert and breaks it for riding.  If the simple word of "stuntman" is a problem, I can always add additional information for that particular movie, like "Cowboy at bar/stunt:" for Beyond the Law, "Soldier/stunt" for Posse, "Police Lieutenant/stunt" for Arizona Heat, "Stablehand Jess/stunt" for McMasters of Sweetwater, "Afghan Soldiers/stunt" for Rambo III, "Drover-Ranch Hand" for High Chaparral, etc, etc, but in my opinion a simple "stunt" listing is sufficient.  But I'm more than willing to change it if it helps get this article past the AdF process.
 * (3) I’m not sure what you mean by “the current ones will simply not cut it as they are not major independent news sources.”  If you are referring to the references, I believe you are not correct. I may be wrong, but I believe the correct Wikipedia guideline is not as you stated (‘major’) but rather “significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.” I have referenced two books by McFarland Publishing Company, a book publisher of primarily academic and adult nonfiction.   The two McFarland Publishing Company books definitely meet the Wikipedia requirement.  Plus I have listed several newspaper articles, which I believe are also considered independent source.
 * (4) Your comment of “listed sources such as #7, 8 and 9 are literally his own profiles!” is probably true and I can delete these references if they are a problem for this article.  They were just added to give a hot link to organizations that Wolff is involved with, the Screen Actors Guild‐American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA), the Arizona Film & Media Coalition (AFMC) and the Arizona Music and Entertainment Hall of Fame (AMEHOF).  Or I can easily remove these as references and relocate them as External Links, but to me it seems more appropriate to leave them in and leave them as hot links in the Reference section.
 * (5) Your later comment of “his filmography itself only lists "stunts", "stunts coordinator" and “uncredited” is confusing to me, True, but that is because his profession is as a stuntman and stunt coordinator.  Your part about “all trivial background works, not significant as and actor at all” is also confusing to me.  Are you implying that the profession of a stuntman is trivial compare to the profession of an actor?  If so, that is just a subjective opinion and not true.  Or are you implying that Wolff’s credits as an actor are not significant?  If so, all I can say is that this article makes no claim that Wolff is primarily an actor by profession.  Please note that this Wikipedia Wolff article starts out with the statement of “He is a movie stuntman known for his equestrian skills…”  True that sometimes he is listed as a stuntman/actor or just actor sometimes, because the two roles sometimes become blurred into one.  For example, in the 1981 TV Mini-Series Winston Churchill: The Wilderness Years, Wolff is given acting credit for the role of Warner Baxter, a famous cinema cowboy of that time period and Wolff is also credited with being the stunt director.  But that’s the movie business, I have no control over that.
 * (6) My apologies for repeating myself, but I’ll say it again, “the subject without a doubt meets the notability requirements of Wikipedia.”  I  have made this point over and over.  I do take your comment seriously, I have tried to address them where I could, but mostly I just disagree with what you are writing.Zootsuit1941 (talk) 22:27, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This article is still alone violating WP:NOT because there is enough to suggest removal is best. Also, simply because he's "highly trained" is not at all convincing for notability, regardless of anything, and that's not even for any acceptable claims of significance here at Wikipedia. Yes, he is only a stuntman and therefore is only a behind the scenes crewman and that's all there is to it.
 * Wikipedia is a memorial of fame for stuntpeople or any of their listed works. I never said he was primarily an actor but by "filmography" listed, that's what the current article suggests especially again because the world are behind the scenes. Simply because he was "given credit" for someone else, is not notable here either, notability is not inherited and that's also part of policy.
 * Even if you remove the questionable links I mentioned, that's still showing the article's bareness and there have been no other significant and convincing sources. Unfortunately, articles are quite complex here, and there's simply not enough for genuine notability here (nor would "he is a stuntman known for his equestrian skills"). SwisterTwister   talk  03:32, 26 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: After reading the above SwisterTwister comment I initially decided not to respond as I think I’ve made the case that the subject of this article meets the notability requirements of Wikipedia. But after reading the above comment a second time I feel I need to respond, as many of the SwisterTwister comments are not true.
 * (1) SwisterTwister’s comment that "the article suggests the subject is primarily an actor by the use of the word Filmography" is simply not true.  If someone can suggest a better word, then I will make the change, but I believe Filmography is the proper word.
 * (2) I don’t understand SwisterTwister’s comment that “he was given credit for someone else…. notability is not inherited and that's also part of policy.."  The subject of this article was not given credit for someone else, I have no idea what SwisterTwister is referring to.
 * (3) SwisterTwister’s comment “Yes, he is only a stuntman and therefore is only a behind the scenes crewman and that’s all there is to it” leaves me almost speechless.  " "Only a stuntman?"  "Behind the scenes crewman?"  "That’s all there is to it?"   Has SwisterTwister ever heard of the Taurus World Stunt Awards, a yearly award ceremony held midyear that honors stunt performers in movies (http://www.taurusworldstuntawards.com)?  Not to mention the Hollywood Stuntmen's Hall of Fame, of which the subject of this article was inducted into.
 * Unfortunately I can’t follow most of SwisterTwister’s word phrasing (or his logic), so I will not be responding to any more SwisterTwister comments, SwisterTwister can have the last word. A final ruling will be made on this AfD in a day or so, and that will be the end of this matter one way or the other.Zootsuit1941 (talk) 15:17, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - Summary: Since the timeline for this AfD is coming to a close and some of my reasons for why this article should be kept may be getting lost in this long AfD, I’d like to add one final comment/summary to support the notability of the subject and keeping of this article.
 * (1) In my opinion, the subject of this article definitely meets or exceeds the notability requirements of Wikipedia for the following reasons, (a) he has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions, (b) he has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject, (c) he has received a well-known and significant award or honor and (d) he has an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography or similar publication.
 * Along with the subject's filmography that shows the significant contributions he has made to some very important movies, the subject has been inducted into the Hollywood Stuntmen’s Hall of Fame (a huge honor) for his body of work, 4 books that mention the subject are included in the references, 2 that mention the subject significantly are published by a book publisher of primarily academic and adult nonfiction. One of the other books that mention the subject significantly might be considered a “self-published” source (I don't really know), but it was NOT “self-published” by the subject of this article, and it (and the 4th book which mentions the subject only briefly) are terrific books!  Plus the subject had been written about in many newspapers, including local and state level newspapers and at least once in a United Press International (UPI) article.
 * (2) I may be in error but it seems to me the PROF/AfD nominator’s main reason for a Delete vote is along the line of “a stuntman is not an actor...a stuntman is only a behind the scenes crewman and not worthy of a Wikipedia page... and any reference to the notability for a stuntman is trivial and unconvincing…” This is simply not true in the world I (and other people) grew up in.  I was born in 1941 and grew up in the time period when this country was coming out of the Great Depression, my heroes then (and still are) were the cowboys and cowboy stuntmen of the western movies.  The stuntmen were the ones that actually made the movies exciting, and they were famous in their own right, stuntmen like Yakima Canutt (perhaps the greatest of all stuntmen) and all the stuntmen that followed him.  I recognize stuntmen in general aren’t as popular as movie actors, but they perform an extremely notable and important role in the movie making business, popularity should not be the only consideration for a Wikipedia page.
 * (3) The other two editors that entered a “Delete" vote seem to have made their decision based on at least partially faulty info. One editor stated the article was “largely uncited vanity,” which was a false assumption on his part (not to mention extremely discourteous) as I explained earlier in this AfD.  The other editor stated, “The only sources that mention him significantly are self-published,” which was also a false assumption on his part as I also explained earlier in this AfD.
 * (4) I’d also like to reiterate that two other Wikipedia editors originally approved this article, as I mentioned earlier in this AfD.
 * (5) Although there have been no editors in this AfD voting to “Keep” the article, one editor did mention in a Comment that one of the facts quoted by the nominator (as a reason for the AfD) was NOT correct.
 * (6) This article has been greatly improved (as far as notability) since the AfD was initiated, as I have mentioned earlier in this AfD.Zootsuit1941 (talk) 18:23, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

'Comment to just one point above. It was asserted "Freese "Hollywood Stunt Performers, 1910s-1970s: A Biographical Dictionary.” This was published by McFarland Publishing and from what I can determine is a book publisher of primarily academic and adult nonfiction. This book is a biographical dictionary on stunt performers who created some of the cinema's greatest action scenes without credit or recognition." Is the second sentence quoted from the preface to the book? It was used it the article also. The book rather seems to be as a comprehensive directory, and inclusion in it does not imply that a particular individual was notable.  (but,fwiw, it is not self-published, and I cannot imagine where that view came from. McFarland publishes many such directories.)    DGG ( talk ) 01:30, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete We require reliable secondary sources and it is very clear that there aren't here. Most of the references in the article are not what we call RS. Others don't provide significant coverage. Accordingly, this is can be deleted. The walls of text here are not convincing. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:10, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input. But would you elucidate on what you mean when you write “…it is very clear that there aren’t any reliable secondary sources in this article…?”  For example, would you clarify why you feel that the “Gene Scott Freese. Hollywood Stunt Performers, 1910s-1970s” reference is not a reliable secondary source?  This source includes significant coverage of the subject, which is based on three other sources (another book plus two newspaper articles on the subject).  This source was published by McFarland Publishing, a book publisher of primarily academic and adult nonfiction.  Clearly this source is indeed a reliable secondary source...and you say "...there aren't any?"
 * And also your comment “…other sources don’t provide significant coverage…” would you clarify that comment, for at least four of the other references provided significant coverage of the subject (i.e., the “The Heart of a Cowboy,” “Jock Mahoney: The Life and Films of a Hollywood Stuntman,” “Stunts, Stars And Legends: Rodd Wolff” and the newspaper article “Pulling Stunts?” Clearly at least four other sources do provide significant coverage.
 * As for as your dismissive "wall of text" phrase, my apologies; but it has been necessary as it seems to me that there have been some one-liners added to this AfD that are not based on factual information.  Zootsuit1941 (talk) 15:20, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. without prejudice to someone writing an article that is not a blend of promotionalism and an essay. WP articles do not start with sentences like "Without the stuntman, the movies that we so enjoy today would be very boring. It was the stuntman who allowed the actors to continue working. They were men and women who put their lives on the line daily to make their fellow actor look good. Rodd Wolff was one of these modern day cowboys who put his life on the line in the world of motion pictures" nor with quotes that" to those who know him personally, ...a valued friend and human being." But I think there is a basis for notability in his profession. Incidentally,, an excellent reviewer, did not accept it. He declined it. And at the time, it was much less promotional.  DGG ( talk ) 18:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment to above: Thanks for your comments.:  But I think you are misrepresenting what Robert McClenon’s posiition was on this article. True that he did originally declined the article, but only because at that time it didn’t have a single references at the time (it's now at 13), but once I added the first few references Robert McClenon wrote “Appears to pass notability now. I am leaving this for another reviewer because I have history with this draft.”  And that is exactly what I wrote earlier in this AfD.  So your statement about Robert McClenon is misleading at best.
 * The three sentences in the article that you referred to (Without the stuntman, the movies that we so enjoy today...) were NOT the start of this WP article, I added those three sentences at the tail end of the introduction section only because the nominator of this AfD was making comments like “he's only an stuntman, not an actor,” and I felt that the nominator didn’t have a good understanding and appreciation of the profession of stunt people. If those three sentences are the main reason you are recommending this article be deleted, I can certainly delete them.
 * Also, I believe you misread the statement of " to those who know him personally, ...a valued friend and human being.” That was not a promotional comment made about the subject of this article, that was a comment made by the subject in a Screen Actors Guild Newsletter about his mentor Jock Mahoney, and this comment was repeated by  Gene Freese in his book titled "Jock Mahoney: The Life and Films of a Hollywood Stuntman.”  The subject of this Wikipedia article was covered signiicantly in this Gene Freese book (mentioned 24 times) and I quoted just that one line from the book. But again, I am willing to delete this one line if you feel it is one of the reasons for your Delete vote. Zootsuit1941 (talk) 21:06, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - I am not ready to !vote, but I will add that when User:Shadowowl accepted it, it didn't contain the promotional gibberish cited above by User:DGG. I initially declined it when it didn't have references.  Then I commented that I thought that the addition of the references addressed notability, and Shadowowl accepted it, but it didn't contain promotional gibberish then.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:57, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - I will also comment that the comments of User:Zootsuit1941, who inserted the promotional material, resemble a filibuster. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:00, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment to the above two Robert McClenon Comments: First of all, I apologize to Robert McClenon if I have misrepresented your opinion on this article; I have honestly presented it, as I understood it.
 * Secondly I resent the use of the word "gibberish."  In the first example, I was quoting what someone else wrote about the subject of this article, that is a direct quote from "The Heart of a Cowboy" book by John H Conley.  But again, it is certainly something I could delete to make this article acceptable.
 * Thirdly, I also object to the use of the term “filibuster.” A filibuster is something done to delay a vote.  I have honestly tried to address all the incorrect information I’ve seen posted on this AfD.  And I will admit that it has become long and difficult to read and follow.  But most of the negative comments made about this article have not been factual.  I am definitely not trying to delay a vote, I welcome a final conclusion on this article no matter what the final conclusion. Also, although I do understand why it was referred to as a wall of text and a filibuster, I think both of these terms are definitely incorrect.  Zootsuit1941 (talk) 21:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment to above: I appreciate your above comment and agree with it 100%, I’ve tried to make the case throughout this AfD that the "Freese "Hollywood Stunt Performers, 1910s-1970s: A Biographical Dictionary” book qualifies as one reliable secondary source, as do some of the other sources I’ve referenced. But I don’t understand your question of “Is the second sentence quoted from the preface to the book?”   Is that question for me (the author)?  If so (and not knowing what “second sentence” you are referring to), I can say I have the Freese book you mentioned and the subject of this Wikipedia article was not mentioned in the preface to this book.
 * One more comment, the Freeze book in question does not just cover stunt performers in scenes "without credit or recognition", the book also includes some of the greatest stunt performers ever, e.g., Yakima Canutt; some say "the" greatest stunt performer ever. Zootsuit1941 (talk) 02:01, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Neutral in spite of one of the more counter-productive scorched-earth AFD defense campaigns that I have been by User:Zootsuit1941. Does not satisfy acting notability, which, as written, does very little for stuntmen, who have to rely on general notability.  The argument is made that the subject is in the Stunt Hall of Fame.  That is true, and perhaps should be qualifying.  There are several stunt performers who are in that Hall of Fame who do have articles; I haven't checked whether they also had acting roles.  I am not !voting for Delete because I think that a good case can be made (by someone other than Zootsuit1941, who is digging a hole) that there should be notability criteria for stunt performers.  (As the gibberish says, many movies couldn't exist without them.)  Robert McClenon (talk) 04:09, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment to the above: To Robert McClenon.  I can accept your neutral vote (and actually appreciate it) although it is a little confusing since much earlier you stated “Appears to pass notability now…,” and since that time I have tried to add more references for notability as a result of the AfD.  But I don’t understand why you feel the need to include insulting comments like (1) the quotes I’ve referenced are gibberish, (2) scorched earth campaign (as in a military policy involving deliberate and usually widespread destruction of property and resources?) (3) digging a hole (as in to continue to make a situation go from bad to worse. As in newbie, you should just shut your mouth; you're diggin' a hole!?) and (4) my comments resemble a filibuster?  Whatever happened to “Do not be hostile toward fellow editors; newcomers in particular?”  I myself have gone out of my way to be polite to all editors in this AfD, and to tell you the truth it's been kind of difficult at times.
 * My comments have been mostly responses to some editors stating their opinions as facts.  For example one editor claimed “all the sources in this article were based only on self-published sources,” that was totally false.  Another editor stated this article was only a “vanity article,” again totally false.  Another editor stated, “there aren’t any reliable secondary sources in this article,” again a totally false statement.
 * I could go on but won’t as I know anything I write at this time will be considered more gibberish and counter-productive, scorched earth, hole digging. With five "Delete" votes and one "Neutral" vote, I'm a realist and can see how this will turn out.  This is my last comment; I’m fine with the final outcome of this AfD. Zootsuit1941 (talk) 06:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  Nordic   Nightfury  08:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions.  Nordic   Nightfury  08:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: I tried very hard to proof-read and copy-edit this poorly-written article. It still needs quite a bit of work to get past the "start" level. I'm taking no stance on the subject's notability, because I can't get past the process. I'd go for userfy if we can do that. Bearian (talk) 13:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - in its current state, there is simply not enough there to establish notability. Being a member of the hall of fame of one craft or another simply does not make one notable. The walls of text do not help the article creator's position either. This person is either notable, in which case, credible, in-depth references from independent reliable sources can be added... or they aren't. If someone want's to userfy, in order to be able to work on it, that's fine.  Onel 5969  TT me 20:38, 6 December 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.