Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thor Fields


 * 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. v/r - TP 03:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Thor Fields

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable actor/musician. Some google news hits but nothing substantive as far as I can tell. Pretty underwhelming list of credits, and now he's no longer acting and instead a member of a redlinked Led Zeppelin cover band. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Per meeting WP:BIO and WP:ENT. Its easy to agree that the subject fails WP:Band, but book and news serches seem to show his theater and television involvemnet having perhaps enough coverage to meet WP:GNG.etc.etc. We can ignore that the fellow left acting at 20 to purseue a mucic career, and concentrate rather on that number of years where his coverage gave notability, and remember that while the peak of his notability is past does not make it somehow now non-notable.  Some cleanup and sourcing will take place shortly.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that the band thing - obviously that's not enough - but I disagree that the coverage you've cited is sufficient. The Weekly World News is a joke, and most of the coverage of Google News is just directory-type mentions of insignificant roles. One of the articles you cite as evidence of notability only says "Thor Fields is a tolerable child actor." Other articles have a similar level of coverage. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I remind politely of WP:NTEMP and that while the peak of his notability is past, being past does not make it somehow now non-notable nor non-existant. Wikipedia does not demand that a person whose last major coverage was decades ago must somehow have sustained coverage to this day.  I am more inclined to see that per WP:ENT the coverage and sourcable notability for his theater and early television is far more notable than anything that followed. And to your point, even the least of the reliable sources that can be found on this fellow are absolute requirements per policy, which policy does not require that the verifibility itself be substantive.  In looking, there are sources that do indeed speak about him directly and in detail... even if he is not the sole subject of the article or book.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not arguing that he is non-notable because the peak of his career happened earlier. My point is that I have failed to find any sources that cover him with the requisite depth, including those you mention. The two sources you cite with the most coverage are from the Weekly World News, which is literally a joke (click through to the article) and nothing like a reliable source. The others are mere mentions. What non-WWN articles did you find that are more than trivial mentions? Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Stage actors are not the focus of a theater review. They concentrate on the stage production as a whole. That an child sctor is mentioned within a theater review (and not simply in a cast listing) in the context to their performance in that production is acceptable.  Of his performance in Camelot the New York Magazine reviewer felt it worth writing "Thor Fields is a tolerable child actor..." That he was serving with Richard Burton, is it no big surprise that NYM concentrated on the famous adult?  Variety's film reviews 1987-1988 speaks toward his role as Danny Chadman in the Shelly Long film  Hello Again stating "...nicely played part by Thor Fields," and Photoplay writes of it as "an appealing film debut by Thor Fields."  And his work as a youngster has apparently made it into the enduring record.  Playbill writes of him, stating "THOR FIELDS (Tom) made his Broadway debut as Louis in The King and I. He is well known to daytime television viewers, having played the part of Eric Aldrich in the NBC -TV series "The Doctors." In 1979 he was nominated Best Juvenile Actor...".  When I track down the nomination, we may have meeting of WP:ANYBIO.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete not a notable entertainer or musician. Career highlight was a 3-year stint on a now-forgotten soap opera as a preteen.  Extremely unlikely substantial non-trivial coverage in reliable sources exists (see above).  On a not-unrelated note, this may be the first time anyone in an AFD has tried to claim Weekly World News(!!!) as a reliable source. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  01:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Har dee har har. Did you read anywhere that anyone "claimed" it as a reliable source? What was claimed was that the actor "seemed" ro have received coverage and attention. On a related note, any personal opinion of "now-forgotten soap opera", runs directly contrary to WP:NTEMP. The award-winning soap is still considered notable per Wikipedia's standards. And the other later offered sources are reliable enough, offering content that addresses the actor directly and offering citable detail, even if not the main topic of the sources themdselves. Thanks.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep – per additional sources: IMDB listing, TV Guide listing, Rotten Tomatoes listing. Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:38, 8 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.