Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Hogan


 * 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 no consensus. Headcount-wise there are about the same amount of keep and delete !votes with some marked as "keep" (I see that the nominator eventually changed their stance to (weak) keep but a number of other delete !votes that were posted later and/or aren't dependent on the nomination indicate that we shouldn't just speedy keep here). Most of the arguments revolve around WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR and whether the sources provided here/roles satisfy their requirements, but there are some concerns about promotionalism/COI too. It seems like there are arguments on both sides of each side and no argument is clearly superior to the other. I note that the discussion was full of offtopic commentary, sockpuppetry and that some participants were sufficiently irritated by one participant that they struck out their !votes. TL;DR I don't see a clear consensus either in favour of keeping or deleting the article in this discussion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:32, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Stephen Hogan

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Does not appear to have had any really major roles; a lot of minor ones--mostly as figures in minor documentaries--  doesn't make for a notable actor. I don't see that any of the references discusses him in a substantial way--they're reviews of the minor films which, naturally mention him.  DGG ( talk ) 02:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:50, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:51, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:51, 25 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Hi. You have already met me in person here in NYC, so you know I can't be him in an Asian skin. So the "closely connected" accusation is FALSE to begin with. Happy to meet you again per Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC - Wikipedia. I submit to you that maybe he wasn't written extensively like other Irish actors such as Liam Neeson, Colin Farrell, Pierce Brosnan, etc. Maybe he was shy or hasn't attracted the attention. I don't know because I don't know the guy. But his long list of works speak to his Wikipedia:Notability (people) - Wikipedia regarding the two requirement laid down. This has been argued extensively on the talk page and on my talk page if not else where. There are sock puppets who have intentionally made disruptive editing that have been caught and blocked. Respectfully, I hope we could dedicate our time and energy on something more meaningful instead of this. Plus, correction on facts. He was never in any documentary film. Thanks for your time and consideration. Supermann (talk) 12:03, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete a non-notable actor with minor roles. Fails WP:NACTOR as well general notable guidelines. did Hogan has played any lead role? If yes, please specify which one as I failed to find any significant role at the moment. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 14:04, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It's right there in the article/filmography. Two film roles: Hogan played Sky Marshall Omar Anoke in science-fiction film Starship Troopers 3: Marauder...He played the lead role of Adam Smith in Iraq war drama Kingdom of Dust: The Beheading of Adam Smith. And then three lead roles in theaters: Mad as Hell (2018), Possible Worlds (2002), 1999 (Fast Food). You are not even reading the guidelines correctly. As I had said before, if you have difficulties accessing the world class libraries electronically, I am happy to upload the printout so that everybody can verify the theater roles are lead roles. But more importantly, you should just watch the movies that are widely accessible. I see you can speak Hindi. Have you seen his performance in Sardar Udham? I am not saying that is a lead role, but once you compare the aforementioned two with his role in Sardar, you can tell what a lead role is. Thanks. Supermann (talk) 14:28, 28 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Making claims do not verify his roles. It needs reliable sources to support the claims. As I can see, the subject has played zero lead roles. The guidelines are very simple.

WP:NACTOR: 1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; or

2 Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 14:37, 28 October 2021 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, I don't know whether you can't count or I can't. Multiple is defined by many dictionary out there as "consisting of, including, or involving more than 1." For example, Multiple | Definition of Multiple by Merriam-Webster. Here he has 5. What I do know is you and I have ZERO. His long list of filmography shows he is prolific. You can say it's not unique/innovative, but the guideline is simple. It's either or. Thanks. Supermann (talk) 19:06, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Which source(s) indicate his lead roles? Please provide here so that we can better understand your sources. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 17:43, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Before we get bogged down in lead role, let's recall the guideline doesn't even use the term. The guideline instead uses "significant roles." So I am not gonna go down this rabbit hole, when the answers you seek are on the filmography by ctrl+f finding "lead role" - an imprecise term used by others. You at least should see those two aforementioned movies that are widely accessible. Supermann (talk) 19:06, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith. You are requested to provide sources here that indicates "significant roles" of the subject than making false claims regarding a WP:COI page. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 08:54, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Off-topic but you could be more respectful to, your comments are a little passive aggressive. deity 10:04, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * People with true good faith would not come on Wikipedia after 20+ days and start commenting on deletion. I have never done so in my 15 years here, because I hope to inform readers. You are not a Sockpuppetry, are you? One notorious editor who touched on this topic has been caught. They are User:Dollyplay and User:Sleptlapps and User:Nyxaros2. I hope you are not one of them.  Supermann (talk) 13:53, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Well I was reading on Starship Troopers and went down a rabbit hole and it led me here. Just trying to help out man no need to get aggressive deity 14:19, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I hope you at least find time to watch the pentalogy of the Starship Troopers (franchise) before embarking on a deletionist path. Then I will truly believe you have good faith and are informed. Have a good weekend.  Supermann (talk) 15:06, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * All the films after the first were pretty awful deity 01:01, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * In that case, why don't you become a writer/director and reboot the entire franchise? It's not like you could otherwise time travel and delete 2/3/4/5 from history. And cancelling Stephen Hogan would gratify you and make you feel less awful?? His rendition of the theme song in 3 has brought the militarism in 1 to an all time high level. For that reason, I want readers not to be deprived of the opportunities to read about the actor on wikipedia. We agree to disagree. Supermann (talk) 05:15, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Well the article can't really be improved further. That's not "cancelling" it's literally Wikipedia guidelines deity 06:13, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * While you are being negative, I actually improved it in my honest opinion, thanks to new coverage by the Dublin Live. Your research skill is impressive. Supermann (talk) 00:57, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I am quite impressive in many aspects deity 11:08, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I saw you are having a great time with "Nyxaros" who is possibly behind the aforementioned three sock puppets. Glad to know you are at least not them. Happy editing and enjoy the rest of your weekend. Supermann (talk) 15:59, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisted per Deletion review/Log/2021 November 6. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   10:53, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nominator--not a notable actor. Drmies (talk) 14:07, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for catching the sock! So User:Nyxaros2 is unrelated to User:Nyxaros? Supermann (talk) 14:40, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it was a troll name, yes. Drmies (talk) 15:55, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * So no consequences to User:Nyxaros? Interesting. Supermann (talk) 17:03, 1 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Clearly sourced, cited and significant roles are present on his page, I don't know if this was added after this discussion, but it seems to me that the original premise of the afd is moot. Hyperwave11 (talk) 11:14, 16 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak delete The article was denied at AfC for lacking notability and the creator's repeated insistence upon submitting it without proper improvement. I've worked on this article, and much as I'd want to vote keep I feel like Hogan's marginal notability is just too little at the time being. Of the three strongest claims to "significant roles", the only one that would really convince me is Terror! Robespierre and the French Revolution. His role in Starship Troopers 3: Marauder is not a "lead role" as the creator or the article claims, but rather a bit part that gets few hits on Google, and the other strong claim, Kingdom of Dust: Beheading of Adam Smith, is currently at AfD. Also, the DublinLive article to me is a bit weak for contributing to notability as it's largely Hogan talking about his experience on set CiphriusKane (talk) 16:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * A "lead role" does not require you to be a production's main star. Hogan was the 4th named in the credits in Sardar Udham, and 3rd in Starship Troopers 3: Marauder. In Dracula: The Dark Prince he was listed 6th, but he played a bluelinked character that is usually a somewhat important role in Dracula films, and is one of the four roles mentioned here. He played Algernon Moncrieff (the second lead, I think) in The Importance of Being Earnest at the Abbey Theatre ("One of [Ireland's] leading cultural institutions"). That's in addition to his other roles which are smaller but there are a whole lot of them: recurring character (4 episodes) in Red Election, recurring role (6 episodes) in Kat & Alfie: Redwater, recurring roles (none more than a few episodes) in The Tudors and Injustice and Chosen and High Road. He also had other film roles and roles at top theatres but I don't know how big they were. Herostratus (talk) 03:18, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Fuck it, I'm out. Supermann is once again bludgeoning and casting aspersions and attacks against me here, and I've had enough CiphriusKane (talk) 09:17, 18 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Malformed nomination, let's start over. The actual argument, apparently, to delete the article is that the article creator and main defender, User:Supermann, was paid for that. This hasn't been brought up here but was an important point at the deletion review. It's being argued now at the Conflict of Interest board. Apparently there's a lot of history around this. I don't know what the truth is here, but I do know we can't have fruitful discussions when the stated and actual reasons for the nom don't match. A nomination of "Marginal article, maybe acceptable on the merits, but looks to be quite possibly a work done for hire, so delete per WP:DENY" would have been a proper nom. We can't work blindfolded here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herostratus (talk • contribs) 02:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I dunno. Maybe the deal is something like "We senior editors know what's what here but we can't prove it, so just go about your business and let us work" but in that case just give us the real reasons so we can discuss them, or else do an administrative delete on the article or whatever and stop wasting our time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herostratus (talk • contribs) 02:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 *  There is nothing "malformed" about the nomination. . The nomination is and was perfectly formed and structured, and about as neutral as you can get. There is absolutely no reason to "start over" when an AFD, filed by a longterm respected administrator and former ArbCom member, is neutral and concise, and perfectly posted. (This message/clarification is for the closing admin.) Softlavender (talk) 01:47, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "filed by a longterm respected administrator and former ArbCom member". The Wikipedia is not a respecter of persons, regarding edits. A non-excellent edit is a non-excellent edit. Would you prefer a different paradigm? To make it clearer since you insist, the nom was neutral and concise but also misleading and one could say spurious if so inclined. I'm confident this wasn't deliberate, but intent doesn't matter here. More background here. Herostratus (talk) 05:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Nothing whatsoever spurious about the nomination. And the link you just posted shows it. Casting clearly unwarranted aspersions on the filer merely seems to reveal how much you are willing to WP:BLUDGEON this discussion along with Supermann, as has already been noted by Djm-leighpark, BusterD, and myself. Softlavender (talk) 05:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't really respond on the merits since you choose to try to make this a behavioral issue... I would be harrassingly bludgeoning you if I did that I guess, and I don't think we want to go down that path. So whatever. I will say that I don't like that you are maintaining that providing a diff with a simple intro of "More background" is casting aspersions. Sounds like "how dare you libel someone by showing what they said" rubric which... I'm not super on board with.


 * So... even tho I prefer to speak colleague-to-colleague and not be SHOUTED AT IN ALL CAPS, fine, OK, WP:BLUDGEON. Which a few editors are bringing up with regularity, so lets look at it, beyond the title... so, it's somebody's opinion (which they are entitled to), it's long and I don't know which parts of it you mean. And (while many parts are reasonable) I plain don't agree with good parts of it, and it looks to be quite wrong-headed in places: "The [bad, bludgeoning] person attempts to pick apart each argument with the goal of getting each person to change their '!vote'"... I mean what the gosh darn heck do you think we're supposed to doing here? Coming in with set opinions at the get-go and just shouting at each other? I get that this is common enough, but is this now supposed to be a virtue? Great Caesar's ghost. Herostratus (talk) 06:55, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Calling a neutrally worded nomination by an experienced editor, who has historically tried to help the article-creator, of a borderline article "spurious" is casting aspersions. Posting 1,481 bytes of blather just now is yet more WP:BLUDGEONING, which has further served to make this AFD into a trainwreck. Softlavender (talk) 07:12, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Well truth is a defense, but OK. Guess we'll have to agree to disagree over what AfD is basically for, I guess. Herostratus (talk) 07:26, 18 November 2021 (UTC)


 * One error I already pointed out above is Hogan was never in any "minor documentaries." I do respect DGG, but if anyone doesn't have the courage to admit mistakes, then something is off. As he points out in his "my approach to admin functions," "Nobody should take anyone's advice as Gospel; I give the best I can, but I've been sometimes wrong." Hopefully I am not taking his words out of context. Thanks. Supermann (talk) 04:18, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make the nomination "malformed". It means that DGG mistook a minor non-notable film recreating real events as a documentary. It also doesn't mean DGG "doesn't have the courage to admit mistakes". No one as far as I can see has requested on his usertalk page that he change this. Softlavender (talk) 04:29, 18 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep of course, on the merits of the article alone, if WP:DENY is not in play. First of all (as deeper looking has found), the guy easily meets the WP:GNG, with:


 * 1) A full-size paragraph reviewing his acting in a film. The publication, Blueprintreview may not be super big but it has a decent article here. EDIT: I have no idea what that publication is; it's opinion, so reliability is not a factor. Notability would be tho, and I think that this source isn't useful for GNG purposes and should be ignored (its still usable in the article).


 * 2) This is a full long interview in Dublin Live, which looks like a legit mag (willing to be instructed otherwise) about popular culture stuff. It is a Mirror property and the Mirror is a tabloid, so that could be discussed. (The interview is about a film Hogan is in, not about him in the sense of the names of his dogs etc, altho you do have bits like "I'm a bit of a history freak" etc.)


 * 3) There is an article in The Times (the London Times) which has several paragraphs just on Hogan, an editor has averred (I can't access it cos paywall).


 * Leaving aside the GNG, the guy is "notable" in the real world sense, in that he's had a long career, played a couple of title roles, played major roles (in the sense of being one of the 3-4-5 top players) in some other productions (which satisfied WP:NACTOR, including stage, and filled out his CV with many recurring roles on TV and film roles. Bottom line: I bet that we have never deleted an article on an actor with a CV like this (and that's just his film and TV credits, he has also had an extensive career at top British theaters). If so, rarely, and we probably shouldn't have. Herostratus (talk) 02:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)


 * As a comment, the Blueprintreview website is not the same as the literary magazine with a Wikipedia article. Also, as brought up at another AfD also commenting that review, it does not meet the threshold of reliability as required of reviews establishing notability at WP:NFSOURCES due to the fact that it is impossible to establish the reliability of their publishing process by the fact that we cannot determine an editorial board or process. Generally, I don't have an opinion on the other sources or whether this article should be kept or deleted, but that specific source is not an adequate review nor is it the same as the literary mag. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  02:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Huh, you're right, sorry. As to the passage, it is opinion, so reliability doesn't enter into it, as we assume that critics are truthfully writing what they think. What matters here is notability: is blueprintreview and/or the article author (Justin Richards) notable enough for their opinion to be worthwhile? I don't know. Here is the author's (Justin Richards) work there, he's apparently done some legit film work. It's... slim. He's never published an article in a real magazine that I can find. He has reviewed a number of films, so he's not my Uncle Dwight, and blueprintreview has a stable of (amateur?) reviewers, so it's not some guy's blog... but still... for notability purposes I'd tend to not want to include that, thanks for pointing that out. Herostratus (talk) 03:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Are you for deleting that literary magazine with a wikipedia article that doesn't cite any sources then? not to mention RS. I just hope we are doing things consistently across the board, instead of me being told WP:OTHERSTUFF again and again. Supermann (talk) 03:00, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion Here's the guide for starting an AfD CiphriusKane (talk) 05:07, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If nobody deletes my contributions, I won't do so to others. That's how I roll and treat others. Knowledge is power. Information is power. More knowledge is good knowledge. It's at least a start. I can choose to discount that knowledge to bad knowledge. Thanks. Supermann (talk) 04:20, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your continuous support. Having anticipated your paywall access issues, as the creator of the article, I had solicited help from the community and they have graciously helped! Pls see discussion at Help_desk/Archives/2021_August_10 and WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request/Archive_112 and the archived URL at Actors make their voices heard for audiobooks | Ireland | The Sunday Times (archive.md). It's actually in the article's reference section. As for the prior 2017 incident, I categorically deny again and again that Bliss Media has paid me to edit on Wikipedia to promote them. They are not interested in having a presence here. In fact, I haven't touched Bliss Media or the Thomas Price (actor) pages for sooooooooooooooo many days now. When one loses interest on some things, that's what happened. Maybe one day I will stop caring about this Stephen Hogan page too. Truth will come out. Supermann (talk) 03:16, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, User:Supermann, a lot of people don't seem to believe you and there's no way to prove it either way, but maybe they're right; you do have a past, and apparently your involvement is seen by some as annoying filibustering, so you might want to just back off and let other editors have their say. Herostratus (talk) 03:51, 17 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: The closer of the DRV specially mentioned issues with WP:BLUDGEON, and quite frankly &  that seems to be about what you are trying to do here.  There enough AfD related drama at ANI already recently but I'm on the cusp of bring you people there.  |Herostratus, at a rough glance you look like you unintentionly double !voted so I'd suggest changing that to a comment.  There's a discussion at at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard if there's a need to discuss issues with concerns of any COI/UPE by Supermann but I'd strongly suggest an AGF of innocent until guilty approach until evidenced there.  To state the obvious I am spending time at this to look for a simple clear best WP:THREE argument for a keep.  Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:59, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey, don't threaten people with ANI. Either open a case or keep quiet. ANI is not for waving around to frighten other editors with empty threats. That's just really insulting and inflammatory. It's not a good way to move discussions like this forward in a calm manner, I don't think.


 * I didn't double vote by accident. A pointed out that (in my opinion) the nom is malformed and we need to start over with the "This article was created under corrupt circumstances" front and center as a key point in the nomination. That's not a vote on the disposition of the article. Then, if we don't start over (which, probably not), on the merits of the article alone my vote is to keep it.


 * I prefer to speak English rather than SHOUT LINKS AT EACH OTHER. I can't read thru a bunch of essays to figure out what you're trying to say. Just be plain, man. And don't lump me in with User:Supermann, I don't know him and I'm my own person.


 * As to the rest, do you have any thoughts on the article itself? That's what we're supposed to be hare about. Herostratus (talk) 06:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Hut 8.5 took us down a WP:GNG rabbit hole that is so deep that nobody seems to be able to get out of. But I just realized essay WP:GNGACTOR. So hopefully, we are toe to toe with this other essay: WP:THREE. To entertain that request for 3 RS anyways:
 * 1) In the 2018 Mad as Hell, directed by Cassie McFarlane, Hogan played the significant role of Peter Finch/Howard Beale at Jermyn Street Theatre. This is listed in the Theatrical filmography section that CiphriusKane liked me to expand on earlier, but now has totally disavowed in his latest argument. The archived URL works. The author wrote, "It's a tall order to play a man as familiar and charismatic as Finch, but Stephen Hogan – the BBC Redwater star – makes a good fist of it. He captures Finch's outrage that people in the Hollywood community, and on the island of Jamaica, felt in a position to pontificate on how he should conduct his private life." The article featured a picture of Hogan. If this is not the treatment of a lead role, I don't know what is. Again, I haven't seen the work, but 95% here don't even bother to watch his movies that are widely available.
 * 2) In the Starship Troopers 3: Marauder review, film critic Joe Leydon wrote for Variety, "Omar Anoke, the heroic sky marshal in charge of battling the big bugs, is a charismatic celebrity and chart-topping singer whose onstage movements and militaristic song list suggest Adolf Hitler as an 'American Idol' contestant." Scott Lowe of IGN wrote, "the Sky Marshal's saber rattling pop single...calls to mind Lee Greenwood's "I'm Proud to Be an American. . Please use "marshal" as keyword when you peruse these two sources. I can accept lumping them into just one single RS to demo his significant role as the baddie only second to the big alien bug.
 * 3) Finally, his significant role as detective Swain in Sardar Udham per Dublin Live at https://www.dublinlive.ie/whats-on/dublin-actor-stars-fascinating-new-21993385, if we are really talking about true AGF of innocent until proven guilty.
 * It's time to not move the goal posts every so often. I am not denying he is not as notable as some other Irish actors out there. But enough is enough with a long list of prolific contributions. WP:NACTOR must be respected. Thanks. Supermann (talk) 06:49, 17 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: Thankyou for suggesting a top three references. As two seem to refer to the same Starship Troopers Marauder 3 role can someone consider replacing one of those with a source to a different role, possibly one for Sardar Udham perhaps?   Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd be tempted to replace the Variety one for the Times article. I genuinely have nae idea why Supermann keeps touting sources that others have questioned the notability-determining of, while ignoring an article about his audiobook narration CiphriusKane (talk) 11:51, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If you recall, there are folks who don't like the Times article either. Let's not forget that I didn't come up with the Times article in the history of the page. Another admin did. She encouraged me to push it back to mainspace after having been put back to draft. But she hasn't re-joined any of the conversation, saying it could go either way. I will try to follow up with her and see if she is willing to join now. She is the other editor I mentioned at the top of the DRV. Thanks. Supermann (talk) 16:01, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * From what I recall there was 1 person unhappy with the article because they thought it was 4 paragraphs long. And I ken you didn't add the Times article, I did (the specific revision has been revdelled). And the admin said that there was marginal notability and there was naething stopping you from moving it.  I was trying to help you here, show that Hogan had more than a bunch of passing mentions in reviews, but honestly this really isna worth my time.  There's just circles upon circles, and this is just all too frustrating when my attempts to help get dismissed like this CiphriusKane (talk) 16:43, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe we are from different cultures. I wasn't dismissing your citing Times article at all. I was just trying to point out the fact that there are other naysayers on that article. I appreciate your help truly and especially when you add stuff instead of destroying stuff. You can be way more helpful by watching (several of) his works, instead of spending all these time taking me to ANI, hounding/gravedigging my edits even after I have apologized how many times now? (Personal attacks removed) If you ever come visit NYC, I wish we could go see a movie together of your choosing and I take you out for lunch. But I guess that is an offer you are not interested in, because that would be me corrupting you financially. I apologize. Supermann (talk) 19:18, 17 November 2021 (UTC)


 * While it was appropriate, imo, to contact an editor previously involved with the article, the tone of this notification is completely inappropriate per WP:CANVASS: It's a wall of texts that I think you may not want to read, esp those questioning your wisdom of citing the Times article on his audiobook narrator contributions. So people are chiming in again at the AfD. Your weak keep might just help swing it into survival. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  20:12, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It's "weak" and "might." It's like "Life is like a box of chocolates." One never knows what they is gonna get. Like in the case of asking CiphriusKane to chime in.  Supermann (talk) 05:02, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There is a world of difference between asking somebody to contribute and telling them how to vote. Adding in weasel words does not make it okay. And please provide evidence of the accusations you are making against me or I will redact them again. Enough is enough CiphriusKane (talk) 09:17, 18 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Undecided after nominator's latest comments regarding voice actor and other film professions notability (something for me to think about) Delete per nom and Softlavender. Coverage not in-depth. Fails GNG and NACTOR. Keep per Herostratus' reply below regarding depth of coverage.  /I am but a reed swayed by the wind/ — Alalch Emis (talk) 10:06, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Sources already noted above are sufficient to pass WP:GNG. -- Jayron 32 12:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Two sources provided by Herostratus look good enough to count towards GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 13:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how any of it could be seen as in depth coverage. Could someone point me in a direction here? How could these sources be used to provide references to meaningful encyclopedic content? Say, if there's a paragraph written, but the only claims we would be verifying with that source are that X played Y role, that is a signal that the coverage is not in depth. — Alalch Emis (talk) 13:27, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, the rule (WP:N) is very vague on what "in depth" means -- all it says is that a passing mention in part of a sentence is not "in depth", an entire book is. In between, you're on your own. "A good meaty paragraph" is my standard, another guy's is "100 words" (WP:100W), another's might be "enough to, taken together, make a decent article, more than a stub", and so on. You'll have to develop your own opinion on that. And of course it depends on particular circumstances. But if all you can get out it is "Smith has two sisters" or "Smith was graduated from Bryn Mawr" then no, that would not be in-depth coverage.


 * But if an entire paragraph is written about someone and all you can get out of it is "Smith played Puck in Richard III at the Old Howard", what's in the rest of paragraph? Herostratus (talk) 17:55, 17 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep per Herostratus. This is undoubtedly a very minor actor, but they do narrowly pass GNG.  SnowFire (talk) 16:58, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * And that,, is precisely the problem: very minor and yet encyclopedic--but not based on the GNG, only on the narrowest and most inclusionist interprations of the GNG. Drmies (talk) 01:38, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Clearly promotional, advertisement article on a non-notable mainly-voice actor who does not meet WP:NACTOR, no matter how one tries to twist the evidence or bludgeon the discussion. I have an exceptionally hard time believing people are defending this article. To me it is a sign of how far Wikipedia has fallen. Seriously people, a couple of sentences about his audiobook readings in The Times and the following ridiculous paragraph on a blog (self-published) review-site equates to notability?

"Stephen manages to portray an okay representation of a New York businessman well out of his comfort zone, but I have to admit I never really warmed to the man. He starts off as being quite whiney, moves along to a rather bolshie state and then finally gets overly sentimental about the Lord’s Prayer. Having said that, if that’s what the guy who it was based on was like then fair play to Hogan for staying true to the person."


 * Please note carefully that interviews do not count towards notability (being non-independent). That is one of the main principles of Wikipedia and AFD. Other sources are passing mentions or not mentions at all. So we're left with no significant independent coverage in reliable sources, much less WP:NACTOR. -- Softlavender (talk) 23:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "interviews do not count towards notability"... you mean if I score a five-page interview in Rolling Stone that's not a factor in whether I'm wikinotable? And that's a key principle. Herostratus (talk) 05:50, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It is far more nuanced than that. Some interviews cannot count towards notability, but some certainly can.  Depending on the type, content, and source where the interview was published, interviews can absolutely be used as sources and count for notability.  See Interviews, which while an essay, contains good advice for use of interviews.  Many interviews would not be appropriate for such uses, but some are.  -- Jayron 32 14:30, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that interviews can only contribute to notability if they contain significant independent analysis and background by the interviewer/author. Since most high-quality magazines would include substantial commentary in the introduction to an interview, such an interview would likely work towards GNG, but not because it was in a prominent publication. JoelleJay (talk) 19:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: In my reading of this discussion and the associated DRV, I'm still surprised to find no mention of the violation of WP:Biographies of living persons policy. While we have supporting sources aplenty, we lack a single anchoring source which meets the BLP standard (independent reliable source directly detailing the subject, not merely their works). As of this datestamp, the subject's birthday is unsourced (look at the applied source and see). Do "keep" asserting editors feel any responsibility to the living human being described in this page? Without directly detailing biographic sources, this page is merely original research, a collection of works. I just thought since we've been discussing this article about an actual human for three weeks I'd introduce a policy central to all such discussions. BusterD (talk) 00:39, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Since when is there a requirement to include a "biographical source"? You need to be enormously famous for a reliable source to even consider writing a biography about you. If this were a requirement then we would be deleting 99% of our BLP articles. Mlb96 (talk) 02:12, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Here is the birthday proof at [redacted]. When anyone forms a company in the UK, they need to provide IDs to the govt. I know that because I am a tax accountant. And the Companies House is where we go for info that is publicly available. It's one of the corp filings at [redacted] where he [redacted, BLP assertion with no ref]. This is more reliable than just a biographer/ghostwriter writing down a birthday without really checking his ID. I don't want to grave dig my own edits. I probably didn't use the first link, because it wouldn't provide enough context of what the amazonaws.com is all about. After I probably put down the 2nd link, another editor came in to use an upper-level link. That's I think what happened. I can accept such revisions. Please feel free to prove me wrong. I am not getting hung up by his birthday anymore. Thanks. Supermann (talk) 04:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)


 * With moderate to significant alarm, I ask rhetorically: is it AT ALL appropriate to include links, both here and the one used as a citation for the birth date in the article, that includes mailing addresses of the subject? ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  04:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a 2014 address. 7 YEARS AGO. CLOSE TO 8. He has probably moved. I am not his groupie enough to show up at his door step to ask for autograph. I am not harassing him.  Supermann (talk) 04:55, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It's never appropriate to dox subjects in any way shape or form, particularly private persons, and "He has probably moved" is... not how BLP works. I redacted the links (technically should be oversighted, but not worth filing IMO), do not restore them but go to Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard if you like. (But I believe that birthdates are frequently not ref'd and I think it is de facto common practice to permit this if there's no dispute or objection.) Herostratus (talk) 05:58, 18 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep not only passes GNG but he's described as 'Well known' and 'known for numerous roles' which supports his real-world notability. JeffUK (talk) 02:17, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - There should come a point where a large number of roles, some of which are marginal as to whether they are major roles, should add up to at least as much as two major roles. This is the sort of case where Wikipedia winds up looking silly by deleting a biography.  The subject has a long list of marginal roles that should more than add up to enough.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:59, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - I !voted to Endorse the deletion at DRV because there was no error by the closer and no claim of error by the closer (only disruption of the DRV by the appellant). But a Delete would be an error by the Wikipedia community.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:59, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: As the fellow who previously closed this process as "delete", I find it hard to disagree with User:Robert McClenon's assertions about the pedia looking silly and making an error by deleting. Bludgeoning by some in this discussion and the resulting DRV has steered conversation from the central issues. I still hold the community has a responsibility to any living human subject to base articles on actual coverage (some of which might be interviews) and not as a mere accumulation of credits, however many. BusterD (talk) 21:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Not seeing sufficient WP:SIGCOV, just a long list of small roles. OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:28, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * weak keep Based on subsequent discussion, I'd be willing to keep the article; considering the disproportionate amount of trouble my nomination has caused, i regret making it--my approach to borderline notability is to let the community decide at AfD. Thinking more generally, we have often been very restrictive about voice actors, as  with other people associated with film who do not actually appear--I think perhaps we  should take a broader approach here.  DGG ( talk ) 18:16, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't be too hard on yourself. You acted in good faith; it appears that others in this thread have not done so, but you share no blame for that, you can't control how anyone else will choose to comport themselves.  Incidentally, this is why I generally always let WP:GNG guide my decisions here.  The SNGs like NACTOR are best treated as supplements to the GNG, and I tend to think of them as indicating where sources is usually so likely to exist that a subject who passes the SNG would also pass the GNG.  The converse is almost always a bad way to think; just because a subject does not themselves pass the criteria of an SNG doesn't mean that sufficient independent, reliable sourcing doesn't exist.  Ultimately, Wikipedia shouldn't care why a subject is notable (in the sense that there is sufficient sources about that subject), merely that they are notable (which is to say, that sources exist).  If the SNGs have any use, it is in helping direct editors to search for where sources are likely to exist.  But if the sources exist, the sources exist, even if we can't find any SNG to justify anything.  -- Jayron 32 18:49, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The nomination did not cause any trouble, but I appreciate the concern from DGG. This overlong process did have the desired effect of revealing and removing a recalcitrant bad actor (apparently without removing from the pedia a weak article about a fine working actor). This was a good outcome. BusterD (talk) 19:23, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The nomination caused trouble. Here's how I'd characterize the process, based mainly on this dif and this:
 * NOMINATION: I think this article doesn't meet our standards. (No mention of anything about the author so as always the natural assumption is that that's not an issue.)
 * COMMUNITY: OK, let's take the time and effort to discuss this article on the its merits. Let's look at refs and find or not find sufficient material to support an article and so on.
 * CLOSE: Article deleted on basis of WP:DENY (this wasn't said and it took some of back-and-forth and effort before this became clear. My assumption -- everyone's i suppose -- was that the close was on the merits of the article.)
 * If there's another way to intepret those diffs I'd be sincerely glad to be educated.


 * Deleting on grounds of WP:DENY is fine I guess (if that's the usual practice). If I'd known that DENY was in play, I would have (after investigation and consideration) probably argued to not delete on the basis of DENY. I didn't get that chance because I didn't know. It may be that DENY cases shouldn't be discussed openly, and maybe for good organizational reasons (sounds weird, but maybe). If so in future could you please just speedy-delete these pages rather than doing kabuki at AfD? This was poor communication. My time's been ill-used. I get that I've said this above so and gotten no traction and I'm repeating myself, that few if any editors will get the point or care, and that if anything I'm going to get in trouble for repeating myself or "casting aspersions" on "an experienced editor" (per an editor above). Doesn't make me wrong tho. Herostratus (talk) 11:58, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * We all can agree your time's been ill-used, User:Herostratus. You have painted yourself into this corner with your constant lack of good faith, apparent failure to read deeply, and frequent disparagement of competency throughout these processes. There's so much wrong about what you've said it's difficult to begin. Accusations of cabal-ism. Willful misreading. You diatribe on the smallest issue without first asking for clarification. Nobody stopped you from having input on this process BEFORE my close. I don't see anyone but yourself and the former Supermann disputing my actual close. For my part I weighed whether to contribute to discussion, then did about 30 minutes of reading. I chose to delete 3-0 on the merits; the three were editors in good standing, the "keep" made zero case and was a previously admitted bad actor, the article itself was a BLP with poorly sourced personal information. I closed quietly per DENY. Not closed per DENY. Quietly per DENY. That's how WP:DENY works. (Sometimes reading the all caps link is instructive.) Supermann approached me on my talk, I declined to reverse or relist but suggested DRV. At the DRV, the keep made no case and kept making no case over and over. Then comes Herostratus, full of judgement but little curiosity. Ask me personally for clarification on my close? Nope. Inquire inside the DRV about my process? Too much trouble. So you write a diatribe which will forever mark you as the editor you were as of that datestamp. Since then, I've just been watching you hang yourself, friend. Supermann is gone, which is what DGG would have liked to do but was just too personally kind to do. You have outed yourself. I'm watching women's college basketball with friends. Things could be worse. BusterD (talk) 18:23, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Alright, sheesh, calm down. This is business, not personal. We're trying to figure if the communication here was imperfect and if so, how, and how to correct for future. OK looks like you think it was fine, so we're mostly going to have to agree to disagree about that, and OK. Couple points I want to get clarity on tho:


 * OK, you're saying "I closed quietly per DENY. Not closed per DENY. Quietly per DENY. That's how WP:DENY works." Alright, I'm hearing you. WP:DENY is an essay. It does say that (if you don't have speedy-delete grounds) to "quietly revert or blank. Reserve listing the page as miscellany for deletion for serious matters, noting that a high-profile forum discussion of vandalism is the opposite of'deny recognition'". Fine I guess. I'm sure "revert or blank" can be extended to "delete" also, and "miscellany for deletion" extended to AfD also. (I personally wouldn't describe the creation of Stephan Hogan as vandalism, but I don't know much about vandalism and you guys do). So.. Why didn't you just do that.


 * Ok, so, I couldn't have had input before your close because I wasn't aware of the AfD -- can't be everywhere after all. In the dif above you wrote "User:Herostratus, before your posting above, I must ask whether you were you aware of User:DGG's previous attempts to help rehabilitate User:Supermann after User:Yamla twice blocked them etc etc etc..." Well of course I wasn't. How could I have been? I can't read minds. I can't follow every contetemps like that. I'm mostly busy doing other stuff.


 * Anyway we're not making progress here, so OK. Agree to disagree.


 * I see where you're coming from about my contributions. You're correct that I made some misteps, yes. Overall, I don't know. We have different styles and all and mine usually works for me. We have different backgrounds I'm sure and that's always hard. I'm bad at interpersonal politics, and getting good at that isn't so easy if you don't have it naturally.


 * OK so, one last thing, no, I would not recommend going down the path of eternal ennmity, here. You have to try to be collegial with editors even if you don't like them. I've gone hammer and tongs with editors and turned around and worked with them fine later. None of this is personal. It's just business. I'm fine with working with you in future, anytime.


 * And as to "...will forever mark you as the editor you were as of that datestamp... Since then, I've just been watching you hang yourself, friend. Supermann is gone..." an unfriendly person might fill in "Supermann is gone..." as "...and you're next paesano, capice?" You don't want to be giving people any false impressions like that, I hope. You know how people are. (Dont' worry, I get that your back us up right now (mine too!) so don't worry about it.) Herostratus (talk) 00:20, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

, It seems you are the first editor in this AfD who started criticising other editors than presenting your opinions in a civil manner. It seems you are wasting the time of those folks who are reading comments here. Most parts of your comments are about "yourself and your previous comments". Please pay additional attention to WP:AGF, neutrality, civility, and WP:DISCUSSAFD. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 14:16, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - Nonotable actor. GoodDay (talk) 20:09, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: No independent secondary sources. The prose at the top is direct from the subject, and the rest is directory information.  The article links to many articles, but none link this one.  The subject has no independent reviews. The WP:THREE or four references listed halfway up above fail the GNG.  This biography and listing of work, impressive as it is, belongs at https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0389621/, where it is. Wikipedia should not host biographies before any other independent reliable sources.   SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:21, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi SmokeyJoe and GoodDay. I could reply here, in particular I could say that "Wikipedia should not host biographies before any other independent reliable sources" sounds pretty idiosyncratic to me (I have not seen this before) and quite a high bar, and it would require the deletion of a good percentage of our bio articles I'd guess, and that this is something we could think about together. However, if I did do that, I might hauled to WP:ANI, partly on the basis of a rather wrongheaded essay, WP:BLUDGEON, which some editors here seem to have latched onto. So I guess I won't. Herostratus (talk) 00:00, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Herostratus. Yes. WP:OTHERSTUFF exists. The policy root for my !vote is WP:PSTS. Zero secondary sources are not enough. That’s why what prose there is is stating factoids without context.
 * OTHERSTUFF exists. NSPORTS in particular is bad. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:47, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

 * User:Supermann has been blocked, partly on the basis of his behavior right here, but mainly as his behavior is "straw that broke the camel's back" as he's had an allegedly doleful history here (which may be entirely true). Supermann has a been a strong advocate for keeping this article, so his disappearance alters the dynamic from this point forward, just letting people know. I expect this thread will close soon, but I got to wondering "where does this Hogan fellow fit in our collection of articles about actors"? So for my own personal curiosity I'm going to check 20 random actor articles -- I'll pick some random actor category and look at the first "A" article, the first "B" article, and so. I may as well write it down here, you never know, somebody might care. As always, I'll report the results without fear or faver (just want the facts), so here goes! It's background data, I'll hat it, and nobody has to read it, so y'all please don't have me blocked, thanks. Herostratus (talk) 00:00, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Draftify or weak keep: (edit conflict) I give up. If I goto ANI about the bludgeons I'll simply be blocked for timewasting.  I've spent too much time on this already, and I really need to put in a mention of Hogan's talent at accent's; really useful for nations bung in a little more about his tole in Sardar Udham, and tweak a sentence at the television section.  And do a half decent lead summary, after winging on COIN about the fails to content the lead section from the body I'd be stupid to do the same thing overtly here myself.  And I forgot about his repeated attempts to get the Tate job films. The Take the High Road, Starship Troopers 3: Marauder and Sardar Udham roles are all significant.  The upcoming Vikings Valhalla might be.  I think Hogan's name was on the from page of an Irish Sunday last week.  Anyway perhaps Hogan will narrate some Wikipedia AfD, DRV and COIN dramas.  Oh and I've forgot to sort about 20 wikilinks inbound to this page.  If I go on any more I'll simply dox the middle name, do a Lucan, or wonder if his clan had a bit part in Delaney's Donkey, I'm mentally done on this AfD. Thankyou. 00:46, 22 November 2021 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djm-leighpark (talk • contribs) (Djm-mobile=Djm-leighpark) Djm-mobile (talk) 10:06, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. Well here I spent a few hours comparing this article to others (for my own satisfaction) but I don't want to make anyone sad, so skip it. I put in the talk page for posterity. Herostratus (talk) 05:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: Switching to delete per harrassment on talk page that seems designed to really fuck me up. I'm more fucked than this article. Djm-mobile (talk) 10:06, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have sorted the inbound wikilinks that were lost in the relist along with others. In the event this article goes deleted then returned as TOOSOON examining the deleted admins contributions history at the time of deletion/AfD closer will give a good indication of the inbound wikilinks to be restored.   I think nearly 40 articles link here, but it is possible I have made one or two mistakes.  Thankyou.  Bigdelboy=Djm-mobile=Djm-leighpark. -- Bigdelboy (talk) 00:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak delete – To me it is clear that he does not meet WP:NACTOR based on his film/TV acting, but I am less sure about his work on the stage. NACTOR talks about "significant roles in multiple notable [...] stage performances", so the question is what constitutes a notable stage performance. Very few individual stage productions have separate articles, after all. Hogan has had significant roles in Mad as Hell at the Jermyn Street Theatre, The Importance of Being Earnest at the Abbey Theatre, and A Doll's House at Perth Theatre; The Abbey Theatre in particular is a major stage, but there is a lack of reviews of the production, which makes me think that it is probably not that notable. I spent some time trying to unearth information about his theatre work when this was a draft, so I'm pretty sure there isn't a lot of coverage that hasn't already been used in the article. --bonadea contributions talk 12:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak delete After looking this over I'm inclined to go with what Bonadea said. Since it's clear he isn't notable enough as film/TV actor, but he might be with the theater work. I just don't know enough about the notability of theater actors to say though and the guideline about it is sorta vague. So here we are. I could see the article being kept depending on how "significant roles" is interpreted though. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:22, 24 November 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.