Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Todd Duffey


 * 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. Black Kite (talk) 11:26, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Todd Duffey

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Article's subject is an actor that fails WP:NACTOR, only being known for a minor role in a single film. SudoGhost 20:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep passes WP:BIO with sufficient coverage in 3rd party sources. RadioFan (talk) 22:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What significant coverage? I see a single reference that provides any sort of significant coverage,and WP:BIO requires multiple, not one or two.  As an actor the individual fails WP:NACTOR by a long shot. - SudoGhost 22:36, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * He wrote "sufficient", not "significant", and the two terms do not mean the same thing. While RadioFan is welcome to correct me, I believe he intended that the sources were sufficient enough for the notability claim of this actor meeting WP:ENT, and not that he had some amazing amount of SIGCOV. While significant coverage is always delghtful in assisting editors in determining notability (if the assertion were a meeting of WP:GNG, which it is not), SIGCOV is not mandatory under WP:V's requirement that sources for assertions be reliable.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 12:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 12:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)




 * Keep per meeting WP:ENT with work verifiable in multiple reliable sources. Sad that his career of late seems to have cooled down and his roles gotten smaller, but WP:NTEMP does not demand that he stay on top of the heap just so long as he was there at an earlier time.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG requires significant coverage, none of the references added show this. I'm also failing to see how WP:ENT is satisfied, I see no significant roles, and the references are all trivial mention, failing WP:BASIC. - SudoGhost 23:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no asertion being made that his notability is through meeting WP:GNG, nor is that a mandate. In your claiming that he fails WP:ENT, you forget to note such as his very first role ever, was starring (significant) as Jethro Creighton in Across Five Aprils (adapted from the award-winning novel of the same name. Quite a feather in a new actor's hat. He was also involved in strong featured roles in many films after that, including the oft-ridiculed charater of the excruciatingly-happy Brian in Office Space... a character that has become a cult favorite as a target of Office Space fans as the don't-be-this-guy guy, and he has recurred as a strong support role in multiple episodes of a notable television series. EVERY actor has smaller and less significant roles in their careers, and this guy is no exception.  But Wikipedia does not demand that all of an actor's roles must be signficant.  We gauge notability on the best of one's works... not the least.  That it can be seen that he has even three or four roles that are significant enough to plot and story is good enough for WP:ENT. And it does seem that Lumino Magazine says more that just a few words about this fellow. Is he the most notable ever? Nope. does his career seemed to have died down? Yup. Are his roles becoming les and less significant? Seems so. But his having the same overarching fame and newsworthiness of Robert Dinero is not the assertion, nor the expectation.  His work is verifable (and again, such verifiability does not itself have to be SIGCOV), and those whodo mention his more notable works from his earlier career do so in a slightly-more-than-trivial manner. Having significant roles in more than one notable production, even if only between 1990 and 1999, allows a meeting of WP:ENT. Wikipedia is not about only the most notable ever... we're also even about those actors on a down-swing who, through their works, can be seen as just notable enough.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 08:55, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The issue with WP:ENT is that none of these significant roles are in notable films, and none of the notable films have significant roles, with the possible exception of Office Space. The Across Five Aprils film is a single unsourced sentence in the novel's article, and nothing I found online showed any notability for the film.  If there is something I'm missing then by all means please show it, but you're making a case against something that was never implied, it was never suggested that "everything" be a major role in a notable film, but it certainly needs more than one. - SudoGhost 03:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Though Across Five Aprils (film) currently lacks an article, a decent case can be made that it meets WP:NF. So to contradict you, it seems that THAT unsourced line CAN be expanded and sourced, or even an entirely new article created. The coverage of the individual for his role in Office Space means that the role was significant enough to have caught the attention of the media.  That's signifcant enough, even if he was not a major player. That, and his earlier starring role in Across Five Aprils just taps over into WP:ENT.  Admittedly, as his career appears on the downswing, he may never reach the hights again, but he was just barely notable enough, once upon a time. I contend that Wikipedia is not to be only about the very most notable persons ever, and has room for those that can be considered just barely notable enough.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree completely. The Google link you gave shows brief mentions in local newspapers; most movies that are played in local theatres are reviewed in these, and does not convey any notability towards the film in a way that satisfies WP:NF.  Nothing I've seen shows that Across Five Aprils film is notable enough to contribute towards WP:ENT, leaving only the Office Space film, and a single role does not satisfy WP:ENT. - SudoGhost 08:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Then we can at least agree to diagree. That Across Five Aprils (film) does not yet have an article written by someone with the time and inclination to research for offline coverage for a 1990 film, does not act to dismiss the verifiable fact of his having the lead starring role in a film adapted from an award-winning notable work. And in our disagreeing with his being just notable enough to include somewhere, we of course need not even discuss his character of the boss in Buttleman, nor his character of Scooter McNutty recurring a couple times in the Barney & Friends television series, but still somehow being significant enough to plot and stoyline to include in the film Barney: Let's Go to the Zoo (another unwritten film article). And while I am not inclined to myself write an article on a kiddie film based upon a popular kiddie series, someone else might. I recognize that Wikipedia is an incomplete work in progress. Being imperfect and incomplete does not mean articles yet-to-be-written are ipso-facto un-notable... it simply means that they have not been written... yet. And as it might be seen by some that Duffey is just notable enough to be worth mentioning someplace within these pages, I am surprised that no one has suggested any other solution beyond an outright deletion of someone who has made it (albeit barely) into the enduring record.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Believe me, I'm not proposing to delete the article because out to get the article, or anything like that, and I'm not judging the lack of fleshed out, relevant articles in this - but from what I've seen (both on Wikipedia and from searching online), the Across Five Aprils film doesn't appear to be notable. The work he's done appears to be either a minor role in a notable work or a major role in a not-quite-notable work, with the exception of the Office Space role. - SudoGhost 19:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As we disagree, and his notability is minor, might you perhaps offer a proposal that will serve the readers and not require outright removal from Wikipedia in toto?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:42, 21 May 2012 (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) 00:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  →TSU tp* 14:59, 30 May 2012 (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.