Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samuel Lee Fudge


 * 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. Randykitty (talk) 10:31, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Samuel Lee Fudge

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Vanity article. Does not meet WP:NACTOR, WP:FILMMAKER or WP:GNG. Autobiographical article on a subject that has never starred in nor directed a notable film nor have they received any significant coverage from reliable, independent sources as per WP:RS. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:26, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:26, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:26, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Curious on why page is being suggested for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samfudge38 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * My reasoning is as per my rationale above. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:35, 17 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. Per a BEFORE, I found two interviews in VoyageATL, an Atlanta-based magazine (interviews here and here), and then an article from the Augusta Chronicle here talking about how the subject appears in three scenes as a marcher in the film Selma. I don't believe the first two from VoyageATL count toward meeting GNG; the Augusta Chronicle piece does, but does one article GNG make? --Kbabej (talk) 01:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Autobiographical elements seem to have been removed, additional article found. Subject is still early in career so GN is possible. Anastasios999 (talk) 04:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it be better to wait until he meets NACTOR or GNG and then create the article then? I don't understand the need to create articles on people who might meet GNG later. Also see WP:CRYSTAL. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * While I agree it would be better to wait before creating an article, why delete the existing one only to have to recreate it later? Give it time and if the subject has no more roles or career movement delete it then. Don’t think WP:CRYSTAL applies.Anastasios999 (talk) 15:20, 18 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep: Voyage ATL and Hy-Lo News articles are on my view, reliable sources independent of the subject. These two articles are significant coverage. Two such articles means he meets GNG. The wiki page being short, or about someone who only has small roles or hasn't directed a notable film does not remove the notability gained from the two articles that qualify him as a person for GNG. Crystal and Nactor are irrelevant for someone who has already passed GNG. Macktheknifeau (talk) 16:21, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Both of the Voyage pieces are just brief interviews. We generally prefer articles where other people talk about the subject rather than the subject talking about himself. The Hy-Lo piece was just a brief quote from him with no real depth of coverage. I can't access the Augusta Chronicle article for some reason but per WP:AGF I'm happy to accept that it has significant coverage. The real question is whether an article can pass GNG on one good source. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * What you consider a "brief interview" I consider significant coverage. Macktheknifeau (talk) 04:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree that the interviews and the Hy-Lo piece enable the subject to pass GNG. Anastasios999 (talk) 09:20, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * How? In what way is a subject talking about themselves 'significant coverage' (this is all that the Voyage sources are)? The Hy-Lo piece only trivially mentions Fudge. There is nothing even close to showing the depth of coverage required here. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:20, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Unless you have a reason for the sources to not be considered reliable, there's no reason why an interview isn't independent, significant coverage under GNG. I think you're letting your desire to have the article deleted cloud your recognition of the GNG guidelines.Macktheknifeau (talk) 03:43, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no definition for the ”the depth of coverage required” in GNG.Anastasios999 (talk) 15:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Please can you explain how someone talking about themselves meets the requirements of 'significant coverage independent of the subject'? Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:11, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You are misusing the word "independent". An article source can't be "independent" of the subject because if it were independent of the subject it wouldn't be about the subject at all. It's the independence of the source that matters. Macktheknifeau (talk) 14:24, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * My point is that the subject talking about himself does not count towards GNG. It is what other people say about him that counts as coverage. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:25, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * But the subject is not talking about himself as in a press release, which is not allowed under GNG, but is being interviewed, however briefly, by an independent party. There is nothing about interviews not being allowed. Anastasios999 (talk) 15:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Interviews are not forbidden and I'm sure that there are many GAs and FAs that incorporate interview sources in an appropriate way. I do have an issue when they are used as the sole claim to notability, though; remember we are talking about an actor that has no notable roles in notable productions as well! We need to remember why Wikipedia has notability guidelines in the first place. This is obviously a vanity article and an autobiography and makes no attempt to not appear as one. We need to remember that Wikipedia has clear goals (see WP:AUTOBIO and WP:COI and others) and if the bar to notability really is so low that you can get through with a couple of articles consisting almost entirely of the subject talking about himself, then we have to consider the direction that Wikipedia is heading in. I've made no attempt to hide the fact that I feel an absolutely strong sense of disgust for anyone that decides to use Wikipedia as a platform for self-promotion, as is the case here. Anyway, for fear of WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion, I will leave it at that and not make any further comments as I've said all that needs to be said. Hopefully, this discussion will stay open for a while longer so that a few other editors can weigh in with their opinion on the notability (or lack thereof) of this actor. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:44, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Could be an up and comer in the film world but no notable coverage from sources that Wikipedia considers reliable. In the entertainment world think Deadline or Hollywood Reporter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miaminsurance (talk • contribs) 13:41, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: The roles fall short of WP:NACTOR/WP:NAUTHOR. In terms of WP:GNG coverage:• The article from The Augusta Chronicle is significant coverage from an independent reliable source

• The Hy-Lo News article is not significant coverage

• The two VoyageATL "Meet ___, Instagram handle: ___, Facebook profile: ___" interviews don't really constitute significant coverage from independent sources. The interviewee (i.e. the source of information) is not independent from the subject of the article.Not enough for GNG. — MarkH21talk 02:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per MarkH21 Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:20, 25 March 2021 (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.