Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tommy Duggan (actor)


 * 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 delete. WP:BLP and WP:V are not negotiable. Without reliable sources, biographical information about living people must be deleted. The "keep" opinions make broad assertions about sources that are, in one editor's words, "out there", but because they do not actually provide these sources, their views are disregarded.  Sandstein  12:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Tommy Duggan (actor)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article relies on no sources with the exception of the Internet Movie Database, which isn't a reliable source. The article is also a stub and I could not find any info on Duggan. Fails WP:GNG Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 15:40, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as supported only by IMDB. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:58, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * keep. Here are some reasons:
 * There are hundreds of junk articles on Wikipedia that are mostly useless to all but a select few people. Many of them do not have any source (general) or references and are tagged. Wikipedia has allowed IMDb to be on many (MANY) articles, even when they are well referenced. This list includes "B"class articles like Elizabeth Taylor and featured articles like Elvis Presley. I have campaigned against using such links as references but they are still splashed all over Wikipedia much like Find-A-Grave or List of Playboy Playmates of the Month.
 * A difference here: is that there are more than 16 instances when Tommy Duggan has notability. Many of the playmates are (or were) only one-shot-wonders and to make Wikipedia look bad (some evidently think good) many of them were in lists redirected to lists to provide erroneous blue links.
 * This actor may not be famous, as others, but he is in the films listed and at least 16 of them have articles. If we start deleting notable but poorly references articles we would have to delete many thousands like Tony Quinn, Kathleen Byron, and Bonar Colleano, *BUT* only after we start with the one-shot-wonders, especially those without any source, or those that show a single source that is either dead or goes nowhere like Robert Atkins (actor) that lists a vague Touchstone reference and of course IMDb.
 * The point is that unless we are starting a Wikipedia wide cleanup, which would involve changing policy, as well as getting rid of IBDb, Find-A-Grave, the hundreds of ships that use navsource. We can not justify deletion of this article because someone doesn't like it, it uses a single source because nobody has taken the time to look harder, or he was not a "big screen" star. On a quick look I found references at Lockerdome and In.com. An Amazon company named Evi uses Wikipedia on it's mobile app to "answer questions about books, music, films, conversions, history, people, places and much more.", and guess what? They use Wikipedia to list Mr. Duggan. That has nothing to do with references but a reason not to start articles and just kill them off for no real reason. The site "Forgotten Actors" shows a picture of Duggan with blond hair, along with Larry Taylor in And the Same to You, that is a VERY short stubby stub and should certainly be deleted according to some reasoning. I suppose that if the British Film Institute (BFI) is considered a reliable source we could keep that one. Well shoot! Tommy Duggan has coverage on BFI that includes more recent The Lady and the Highwayman (1991), The Clothes in the Wardrobe (1993) as Father O'Flynn, and Grant unto Him Eternal Rest (1995) as Father Paul Cleary. Maybe he liked being a priest or was just type cast.
 * Conclusion: This actor has played in more than a few roles so should not be deleted unless we are "cleaning house". The article, like thousands, needs someone to spend a "little" extra time (if I found all the above so surely someone else could) and expand the article. Otr500 (talk) 11:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak Keep- There are few sources where information can be found for him. It might be due to sources are archived or not easily accessible. With the filmography listed on the page, We cannot state that he is not notable.Kavdiamanju (talk) 16:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment 'IMDB is an unreliable source,' is too categorical a statement. For industry data on actors, directors, composers, producers, cinematographers, etc. IMDB is a reliable source, including awards received. Most of the biographical information on page 2 is glorified gossip and seriously unreliable. Not sure on birth dates, given names, etc. Tapered (talk) 03:55, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Per WP:RS/IMDB, IMDb is not usable as a reliable source at all. The reason for this is that anyone can submit information - even blatantly incorrect information. The best example of this I can give is Gretel Ashzinger. Someone had created an entire IMDb profile that made some pretty large claims: that she was a Disney performer (voice actor and was on a soundtrack), that she had given out some notable awards (and received some), and that she was going to be She-Hulk in Captain America:TWS. All of these were very easy to disprove, yet it took IMDb a fairly long time to actually detect that someone had created a hoax profile. That they didn't even remotely research the claims shows that they perform little to no actual research when accepting profiles - even if the profile is making some extremely major assertions. Does that mean that everything on IMDb is fake? No, but it's the main reason why Wikipedia cannot use it as a reliable source and would need a different source to back up claims, even if those claims are minor. I have no opinion on notability for Duggan, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  05:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. --  Ascii002  ( talk  ·  contribs  ·  guestbook ) 02:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --  Ascii002  ( talk  ·  contribs  ·  guestbook ) 02:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete likely as he seems to have simply been a commonly used background actor and there's no obvious better improvement here. Notifying who likes to be informed of these subjects.  SwisterTwister   talk  06:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - Thanks for the ping - This was a hard one. While Tokyogirl79 is right regarding the unreliability of imdb.com, as the end of their link states, "IMDB might provide information leading editors to the preferable reliable sites." While IMDB shouldn't be considered a reliable source, the underlying essay on which Tokyogirl79's link is based says that sometimes it may be used (disputed) for "1.Released films only: Sections such as the cast list...". So, when you can verify that information in other sources, (e.g. AFI, BFI), it becomes reliable. In this instance, one can use the filmography to look at other sources to see if Duggan passes WP:NACTOR. Does Duggan hav significant roles in multiple films?  Well he had a significant role (Brother Matteus) in The Final Destination, and he had a significant role in episode of the British TV series, Lillie. But that was just a single episode. The Omen was indeed a notable film, but his role in that is borderline. While simply titled "The Priest", it does occur in the second grouping of actors during credits, which in a major motion picture usually denotes some significance. If he had played Father Brennan, it would be a no-brainer. He had a significant role in Dead Man's Evidence, but is the film notable? And again, he had a significant role in 1954's Destination Milan, which was a film made up of 3 episodes of a television series, but again, it is notable? He also had a notable role in the British series Father Ted, although again, it was in a single episode. I haven't checked every cast listing for this person, but every one I have checked (30 or so, is verified). I think his body of work qualifies him for inclusion. However, following the guidelines of WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG, I think he barely squeaks by. For some strange reason, British cinema of the 40s and 50s is under-represented on English wiki, imho. The best source I can find for him is THIS, but it's not really that in-depth.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Added comments: I have added a reference (general at this time) from BFI, removed the IMDb tag and added a "Oneref" tag.
 * I think it is sad that in order to prove a stub should not be deleted an editor must champion the article instead of showing the facts and then others agreeing that there is proof but the article needs tags and work. As it stands now a stub article, that is in need of work, can be argued to possible deletion by comments that the person (in this case) is not very notable ("commonly used background actor"), and "...there's no obvious better improvement here.", even with plenty of information to the contrary above the comments. An admin should discount these but it is not always the case. The reason the article was brought before a deletion discussion was because of 1)- "no sources", and 2)- IMDb as an only reference (not a reliable source), which gives rise to notability issues. It was also stated that the article was 3)- a stub, and 4)- no other information could be found. I have resolved the issues of number 1 and 2 by adding a reference from BFI. Number 3 is obviously not a reason for deletion and number 4 is obviously fallacious. More references are needed but this is a stub article needing work and not a start-class.
 * Trying to micro-manage just "how famous" an actor has to be, to determine the significance of an actors career, to determine notability for inclusion should be easy. Barely squeaking by is a "pass" as the options in this case are "delete" or "keep". Multiple supporting roles, more than two in movies or TV, would be a good indicator, as opposed to an extra or an unaccredited actor. If an indication of "significance" would be  the name placing in the credits then being on page one as a supporting actor in But Not for Me (film) should add to notability for inclusion. General "notability" has not really been an issue, but the "significance" of the notability. Winning an Emmy, Academy, or a Tony Award makes it a no-brainer but Sean Connery's long, illustrious, and successful career was rewarded with only one Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor. His notability spans generations and his other awards are numerous. I suppose it is a great thing we have supporting actors, because Sean never really was good enough (according to the industry) to win an Academy Award for a lead actor, although he did win a Tony Award. This actor does not have all the accolades of some but nonetheless has played significant parts in more than a few movies that more than justifies inclusion on Wikipedia.


 * The reason "British cinema of the 40s and 50s is under-represented on English wiki" could be attributed to the years not being particularly of interest to editors but could also be attributed to systemic bias, that was stated above, "It might be due to sources are archived or not easily accessible.". However, if we get rid of all those types of old movie actor articles (would that be bias?) we would not have to worry about it being an issue right? Otr500 (talk) 03:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * There are problems with references as so many films were misplaced, lost, destroyed, or stolen during the time period, from the 1920s to the 1960's numbering around 400, but narrowed to the top 75 in the BFI Most Wanted list. Some of Duggan's films were made in France and Italy giving some complications. Now I know why it is hard to find some British film information. A Matter of Life and Death and some of the Dr. Who films were recently found, but the missing list is long, and scattered, involving more than one country. I am in the process of adding some references and looking for biographical information. Otr500 (talk) 00:26, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13(talk) 16:37, 29 November 2015 (UTC) Keep reliable sources are out there 87.113.39.93 (talk) 17:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 16:37, 29 November 2015 (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.