Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyson Houseman


 * 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   keep. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Tyson Houseman

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

seems to fail WP:Bio Alan  -  talk  05:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep While his career is so far short, his roles appear significant enough for notable projects and the individual himself seems part of a growing cult following so as to meet WP:ENT. Lack of sourcing is a concern, but article is sourcable. Send to WP:Cleanup for such per such as BBC News, Edmonton Journal 1, Say What News, Twilight News, Coast Reporter, Edmonton Journal 2, Times, et al. Appears to be a surmountable issue.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 17:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * note - artcile creator is under investigation Sockpuppet_investigations/Brexx Alan  -  talk  22:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And that's a true shame... really... as the article in question does appear to have potential despite its creator.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * article can be easily recreated when notable.. i't's been tagged for over 2 months with no additions to improve it.. If someone has good context to add with reliable references, the article can be saved Alan  -  talk  23:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you contending then that despite sources toward its possible improvement, that the article should be deleted because of WP:NOEFFORT?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I nominated the article based on whats there and what I was able to find, which is not much of anything, just a few mentions here and there. I don't see how the article will be more than a stub, but I can be wrong, which is why there are these discussions to begin with. the fact that the creator is a sockpuppet doesn't help, but some admins will leave the article providing it can be made notable Alan  -  talk  03:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose that even with sources, it will come down to whether or not appearing in a significant role in the two Twilight films is seen as enough to meet WP:ENT, and if even if currently a stub, whether or not editors think the stub could ever grow as the actor's career advances.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's more about finding referances where the actors notability can be presented and verified. One lead role may not qualify.. if he gets no other significant acting parts, he'll be forgotten. It may qualify under stub for the movie itself, which would be a whole other debate as everyone will interpret the guidelines in their own way on that Alan  -  talk  22:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup... the quibble will be if two verified roles in two notable films for this newcomer count as multiple per WP:ENT.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wine Guy  ~Talk  08:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Weak Keep - You can argue that he has a significant role in a major work. The sources don't seem to cover him in depth, but he is mentioned in a lot of places. Here I think breadth makes up for a lack of depth. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 17:04, 3 March 2010 (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.