Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tarn Willers


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 07:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Tarn Willers

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Although he meets ANYBIO #1, that criterion only indicates likely, not presumptive, notability under the GNG ("meeting one or more [criteria] does not guarantee that a subject should be included"). After searching, I have not been able to find significant coverage in reliable sources. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Poland,  and England. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep. He won a BAFTA Award and he is currently being nominated for an Oscar. He also won and was nominated for other awards and I'm sure there are other sources about him around . Only one criteria has to be met according to WP:NOTABILITY, "It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG)", so it passes WP:SNG and it meets WP:ANYBIO#1. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 03:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that WP:N does say that; that means we look to see what NBIO says. NBIO, in the lead paragraph for the "Additional criteria" section (directly above ANYBIO), states: "People are to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, ." Unlike NCREATIVE, which explicitly states that "a person  notable if" they meet the criteria, ANYBIO#1 does not confer presumptive notability; it only indicates that SIGCOV is likely to exist. See this discussion in the NBIO talk archives, particularly the points made by  and .Regarding the second source you've provided, it is entirely based on an interview and thus is not independent. As I noted in my nomination, I have not found additional significant coverage after an extensive WP:BEFORE search andthe sources cited in the article do not provide SIGCOV. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It still passes WP:SNG and it doesn't have to pass WP:GNG, only one criteria has to be met in WP:NOTABILITY. While reading the additional criteria, it still meets the WP:ANYBIO#1 following standard. But "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." seems to be something else and it doesn't mention that it has to have significant sources. It just says differently or something. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 18:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * seems to be something else and it doesn't mention that it has to have significant sources. It just says differently or something. You're ignoring the previous sentence, which states that people are only "likely to be notable"meaning likely to have significant coverage in reliable sourcesif they meet the criteria, not that they are presumptively notable. With that context, "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included" has a pretty clear meaning: even if a subject meets one of the SNGs listed at NBIO, an article will not be appropriate if there is no significant coverage.Put another way, ANYBIO#1 provides a rule of thumb: if a person meets ANYBIO#1, there will usually be significant coverage of them ("likely to be notable"), but that significant coverage is not always guaranteed. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Likely to be notable doesn't really mean "likely to have significant coverage in reliable sources", it mostly means that they are likely to be notable if they meet the following standards in WP:ANYBIO. There is no mention if it needs significant coverage in there. Look at WP:NBOX, it's specific if it needs significant coverage since that says "Significant coverage is likely to exist for a boxer if they" meet the following standards. Willers is still notable. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 00:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * "Significant coverage is likely to exist" is synonymous with "likely to be ntoable" because "notable" is defined as "having significant coverage in independent, reliable sources". The argument that "likely to be notable" means "likely to be notable" if it meets ANYBIO#1, and therefore if something meets ANYBIO#1, it is presumptively notable, is circular. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, "likely to be notable" means that "if they meet the following standards or criteria on what they have to meet in WP:ANYBIO" (with no mention of significant coverage) since it ends off with "if they meet any of the following standards". This reminds me of WP:NOLY, that it is notable but needs significant coverage. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 01:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. MoviesandTelevisionFan's explanation said it all.- My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)  10:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep per MoviesandTelevisionFan. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete: The award implies notability, but we still need sourcing about the person. This is about the best I could find . Sadly, I think sound engineers don't get much press coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 21:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. Won BAFTA and nominated for an Oscar, clearly notable. --NiTen (talk) 22:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:27, 22 February 2024 (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.