Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theo Rossi


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 19:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Theo Rossi

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I had nominated this for a speedy, and another editor declined, pointing out that there was an assertion of notability in the statement that the subject was "best known for his recurring role in . . . Sons of Anarchy. Duly chastised, I found that in IMDB he is indeed one of the only two actors listed as being in 14 episodes (presumably all of them to date).

Then I thought he must be referenced in reviews of the series. However, after a review of the top several pages of hits generated by a Google search for "Sons of Anarchy" review, I found that the subject was not mentioned in any of the reviews (he is mentioned on the cast list appended to one of them).

With respect to the subject's other roles, some of them have been in notable productions. However, none of these roles has been at all notable:


 * Boston Public: In two episodes out of 81 total episodes.
 * American Dreams: In two episodes out of 63 total episodes.
 * Heist: In two episodes out of seven total episodes.
 * Las Vegas: In two episodes out of 98 total episodes.
 * Grey's Anatomy: In two (not recent) episodes out of 83 total episodes (to date), hence no expectation of further appearances.
 * The Challenge: Rossi not mentioned in either of the two (non-notable) external reviews mentioned on IMDB.
 * Code Breakers: Rossi mentioned in the crew list in Variety, but not in the only other external review mentioned in IMDB.
 * Cloverfield: In a spot check of several external reviews (NY Times, Roger Ebert, BBCi, Guardian/Observer) listed in IMDB, neither Rossi nor his character name is mentioned.

If his performance or character in his upcoming movies proves to be notable, then he will be ripe for an article then. But Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.

In the meanwhile, the subject fails both the profession-specific criterion of "sgnificant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions", as well as the general notability guideline. I have been unable to locate one single word of editorial commentary on the subject in even the most comprehensive of inclusive fansites, such as tvguide.com, tv.com, sidereel.com, etc., despite his filmography or roles being mentioned.

Bongomatic (talk) 12:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep If "Sons of Anarchy" was his entire body of work, I might have said weak delete. But there are some roles in notable films (Cloverfield) as well as TV work (Lost, Grey's Anatomy, Bones, Jericho, etc), and I think he's safely above the bar of notability. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see update to nomination to address your points. Bongomatic (talk) 14:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I see your point, and agree that taken individually, nothing he's done is truly notable or article-worthy. I would say, however, that taken as a body of work there is enough collective notability here to sustain an article.  I acknowledge that there is room for disagreement, but that's what AfD is all about. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I'm an inclusionist when it comes to Wikipedia and I was under the impression that an actor needs a minimum of three credits to be considered for an article.  Theo Rossi has several credits, in episodic television, on Sons of Anarchy and in films.  To me, this is a keep.  Also, with all due respect, and I do mean that, and don't mean to offend in any way, you seem to have gone to some trouble in an effort to get this deleted.  I, for one, think it's not very productive.  Just something to think about. -FateSmiled&amp;DestinyLaughed (talk) 18:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, the criterion (to be found here) is "significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions," which is not claimed and would not seem accurate. But as you surely know, consensus often diverges from stated policy. Bongomatic (talk) 23:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The CV of a working but not noteworthy actor. Wikipedia is not an arm of the IMDB. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 01:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - his IMDB credit list establishes him as a working actor, but as there are no articles written about him or his performance, nor any evidence of awards for his work, notability is not established. -- Whpq (talk) 18:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete - Haven't heard of him before, plus vanity. - ÆÅM «(fætsøn!) 09:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:IDONTKNOWIT is specifically mentioned as a line of reasoning to avoid in deletion debates. - Mgm|(talk) 10:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment It's not the number of episodes that matter when it comes to his TV roles, but the kind of role he had. He can be in one single episode, but when the entire episode revolves around the regular cast responding to his character or his character having some major impact on them, the character he played is still important. At the moment, I do not have no idea on whether his roles in Sons of Anarchy and Cloverfield are main characters, if they are, keep. - Mgm|(talk) 10:42, 29 October 2008 (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.