Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russell Nauman


 * 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:17, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Russell Nauman

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails WP:NACTOR and WP:NCREATIVE most of the sources are simple passing mentions or simple bios that seem to be mostly self-published. Domdeparis (talk) 10:17, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   11:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   11:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   11:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: helped resolve the WP:NACTOR and WP:NCREATIVE dispute by finding WP:RS and removing apparent WP:RSSELF. Notability can also be verified through imdb and Google. JuggrnautTN (talk) 4 May 2017 (UTC) — JuggrnautTN (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Imdb is not a reliable source for notability but a list of credits that anyone can edit and there is almost no control and a google search is not a source for notability. Please read WP:GNG to understand more. Domdeparis (talk) 15:37, 4 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep: The page has been updated with additional WP:NEWSORG articles and other significant coverage sources supporting WP:ENT for involvement in acting and puppetry. Disputed citation removed per WP:CITEIMDB.JuggrnautTN (talk) 21:38, 8 May 2017 (UTC) — JuggrnautTN (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * comment you have added a certain number of sources to a local newspapers that seem to be erroneous when you click on the link the search result comes up with "no documents found". A deadlink should not be added from the outset. Otherwise none of the other sources are in-depth coverage of the subject but at best passing mentions. Domdeparis (talk) 10:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * * I appreciate the advice. It will help with edits. I added the links because it contains the article ID# in its description. By searching http://nl.newsbank.com (which I noticed is often used on Wikipedia) others can read an excerpt of the archived article which means readers can WP:VERIFY the source. Projects associated with this topic can be verified through their respective links and sources. As an new editor, I'm attempting contribute to the niche category of puppetry. WP:SPATG. It's challenging to find strong secondary sources because the performers aren't typically interviewed. Most shouldn't meet WP:GNG, however in this case, the topic was covered in multiple verifiable citations. Perhaps this is an indication of WP:NOTLEVEL because of the mystique maintained by their profession? Not sure. Most Puppeteer pages I visited were flagged in one capacity or another. That's why I relied on NewsLibrary to satisfy the sources dispute. Perhaps the wiki community can advise me on how to contribute pages for puppeteers with the current challenge presented: meeting notability and citation standards set by WP:ENT. JuggrnautTN (talk) 14:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I have just gone through the sources that you added and I don't know if was intentional but you modified the amount of the scholarship (twice) it was 500$ and not 5000$. It was not a graduation scholarship but a talent search open to all high school students; Also the "nomination" for a prize in the lede is an awards ceremony that anyone can enter so long as you pay the 50€ fee or 31€ if you get in early...link. I modified the article to reflect the information in the sources. As you so rightly said it is difficult because there are no strong secondary sources and you have hit the nail on the head as to why I nominated this page. Wikipedia contains articles about notable subjects and have to meet the GNG. Domdeparis (talk) 15:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for correcting my error with the amounts! What's currently on the page isn't an exhaustive list of his work. I only included credits I could link to secondary sources that included mention of him. A few verifiable citations appear in videos and not written in text, unfortunately. Perhaps a more experienced and resourceful editor could add to the page. I still believe it fulfills the minimum per WP:ENT. JuggrnautTN (talk) 15:58, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. But 3 shorts, a bit part in 1 NCIS episode, an unnamed part in a film, an uncredited role in a comedy sketch show, a character in a web series that has had an average of 10k views per episode and some credits as a puppeteer but with no in-depth coverage of his work whatsoever I am afraid I don't think he comes anywhere near to meeting WP:ENT. Domdeparis (talk) 16:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we will have to agree to disagree. In defense of the article, the "10k views per episode" you mentioned was drawn from [YouTube] and not the other subscriptions services  referenced where viewership data isn't available. The topic's inclusion in a national touring show since 2010 and exposure as a corporate mascot were also referenced on the page. JuggrnautTN (talk) 18:08, 9 May 2017 (UTC) *Note: Additional WP:RS found under "Henry Nauman" and added to page. JuggrnautTN (talk) 05:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The source that you added as a WP:RS for Henry Nauman is not independent as it is at the bottom of an article he wrote for a Historical Society. Are you scanning everything that you have on him? Domdeparis (talk) 16:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   11:18, 11 May 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak Keep Doesn't meet exact requirements on WP:ENT, but is close enough I feel it deserves the benefit of the doubt for now. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * would you mind being more precise? Which of the criteria does he come close to meeting and which are the sources that provide in depth secondary cover? Domdeparis (talk) 03:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * there seems to be a general lack of interest for this discussion and as you are the only !voter excepting the article creator would you mind replying to my question above as I think your !vote needs clarifying? Domdeparis (talk) 10:46, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It appears to be a person active in the entertainment industry with at least two independent sources, so I was inclined to keep the article. Looking deeper, I can't make any additional case to keep the article, and wouldn't object to a deletion.  Power~enwiki (talk) 20:20, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   04:55, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete -- being on a nn web series and appearing "as the character Cameron Mann in one episode of the 14th season of NCIS" is not exactly a claim to notability. Clearly fails WP:NACTOR with correspondingly weak sources.
 * Appears to have spawned a walled garden, including What Is This Night! and Some Like It Bot!. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:50, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. No significant roles: one non-notable web series, and one episode of a serial. In neither case is it possible to determine whether the role was major.  DGG ( talk ) 00:19, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Meets neither WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  TT me 01:57, 29 May 2017 (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.