Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Fisher-Becker (2nd nomination)


 * 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   keep. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:34, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Simon Fisher-Becker
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Entirely non-notable so-called actor. Not covered directly and in detail by multiple reliable sources. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  high seas  ─╢ 07:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment It is clear from WP:BEFORE sources that Fisher-Becker is indeed an actor (not a "so-called" one) with appearances in Dr Who and a Harry Potter film as well as theatrical work. What may be more questionable is whether he meets notability criteria, but we should be careful not to disparage in discussing that. AllyD (talk) 08:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  — &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  — &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Question What has changed since the previous decision to keep this article? Tryphaena (talk) 21:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC) — Tryphaena (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Are you seriously asking, what in our notability policy has changed since 2006? ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  First Secretary of State  ─╢ 07:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This subject has been discussed before and a decision taken that it was worthy of an article. To reopen the discussion suggests that the previous decision was mistaken; that the subject has got less worthy of notice; or that the standards for inclusion have got higher.  Which is it?  Tryphaena (talk) 10:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC) — Tryphaena (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * In the 5 years since the last discussion, the standards for inclusion have been, shall we say, codified; see WP:NOTE. To meet the notability guideline, subjects must have received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Has this person? Yes or no? (Incidentally, you may also find WP:NOTAGAIN interesting reading.) ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  person of reasonable firmness  ─╢ 14:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Lots of notable roles in a variety of major productions. For example, see Doctor Who' actor Simon Fisher-Becker joins 'Game of Thrones. Warden (talk) 21:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Rather than subjectively and arbitrarily classifying a couple of C-list roles as "notable" could you perhaps cite some significant coverage of this person, since that is the standard required? For instance, the DigitalSpy article you linked to does not cover Mr Becker-Fisher "directly and in detail" – it's a short, ~5-sentence interview with him solely focussing on the production rather than on himself. Thanks. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  First Secretary of State  ─╢ 07:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ahh... but that short article covers him directly and in detail and is not simply a brief or trivial "mention". The example offered is only one of many available that speak toward his roles. Guideline does not demand that sources on the subject be extensive, nor does guideline demand that the sources be solely about the subject.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Aother question Since Mr Tag did not like where I responded to his anonymous little jabs, and so chose to remove them, let me ask my question again in a place where I hope he will approve.  He pointed out that I had made edits mainly to this topic.  So what does that have to do with the price of fish, or the question of whether or not this subject is suitable for the encyclopedia, or the question I asked, which was, why is it necessary to discuss it again?  Tryphaena (talk) 06:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I had made edits mainly to this topic. So what does that have to do with the price of fish? Because it suggests that you may have a conflict of interest (ie. may be associated with Mr Becker-Fishery somehow) – see also WP:SPA. Why is it necessary to discuss it again? I have answered that question exhaustively. WP:NOTAGAIN is the shortest version of that answer. All clear now? ╟─ Treasury  Tag ►  Clerk of the Parliaments  ─╢ 08:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * So why not ask instead of leaving the snarky little notes and deleting my reply? Anyway, if that was your concern then I am happy to confirm that I have no connection of any kind with the subject of this article and do not stand to gain in any way from its retention or deletion.  Since Mr Tag is so anxious to have it deleted, perhaps it would not be entirely out of place to ask if he can make the same claim?  I presume that "Becker-Fishery" was a simple typo rather than a feeble attempt to be amusing at his expense.  Tryphaena (talk) 21:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Not sure about his notability, but I think the "so-called" in the nomination was unnecessary. Just because an actor has not had starring roles on screen does not make him any less of an actor. It just makes him the norm. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep increased notability is no reason for deletion. Agathoclea (talk) 10:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have no opinion at this time on this actor's notability but I have to agree with TT wrt the first AFD. There were 3 "keep" !votes, 2 were based on his IMDB profile and ghits, the 3d was just a vote. None of these arguments would cut any ice here and now in 2011. The first AFD is not helpful in determining this actor's notability. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep as satisfying Notability (people) (1). Tryphaena (talk) 20:07, 28 September 2011 (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.