Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2017 June 7

= June 7 =

Creating a Wikipedia article?
What does it really take to create a Wikipedia article? I created one about an actor (Malcolm Dixon (actor)) who was in a some movies that I liked in the 80's. It was quickly deleted by someone who said that he didn't see any of the movies, so the actor must not be notable. I argued a bit and I was told that the pages for the movies I mentioned didn't have a link to his page. I went to each of the movie pages and made sure that the reference to the actor's name linked to the page and then recreated the page. It was quickly proposed for deletion because it didn't have references. I went through and added references. After a few hours of messing with the weird references thing, I was told that the references I was adding don't count. I need different references. So, assume that I spend the next few days finding different references, what comes next? 209.149.113.5 (talk) 11:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The easiest way for one unfamiliar with process is to use WP:Article wizard and/or WP:Your first article. They will help walk you through the steps and Article wizard will require a reviewer to approve your work so you can avoid the messy process you are currently in. WP:Reliable sources should help with your current issue. Questions like these can be asked at the WP:Teahouse as well which specializes in newcomers. Rmhermen (talk) 13:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * You problem appears to be with the notability criteria - which for actors is
 * Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.
 * Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
 * Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.
 * Looking at the list in your article, I don't think you can really claim that he meets those. Wymspen (talk) 13:19, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * It is pointless. Before I could even get to adding interviews and all his theater work, all the work I did was reverted. It is obvious that this has to do with being in the "in-crowd". You want a "significant" role. What makes it "significant"? He had multiple major roles in multiple movies, but are they "significant"? In multiple films. How many is multiple? He has been in over 30 films. Apparently 30 is not "multiple". He has a large fan base. Really? Every actor with an article on Wikipedia has a large fan base? How large is "large"? There are many fans of Time Bandits and Labrynth who are also fans of the actors. But, how many does it take to be "large"? Makes a "unique" contribution to entertainment. There is absolutely nothing unique in entertainment. It is all recycled. "Prolific"? How many is "prolific"? Then "innovative". You want to know if he recycled old work when most people forgot about it? That criteria is all bunch of opinions that can be argued either way anyone likes. If you are in the "in-crowd", it is argued for you. If you aren't, it is argued against you. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 17:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't really think playing an oompa loompa in Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory and a washing machine in The Goodies count as significant contributions to world cinema. It would be best if you let this one pass. --Viennese Waltz 18:10, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Who decides, for example, Matthew Alan, Micah Alberti or Stuart Allan (all of whom I have never heard of) are more worthy of an article than Malcolm Dixon (who I have heard of)? --TrogWoolley (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I would have used Peter Ostrum as an example. The claim being made is that if you played an Oopma Loompa, it doesn't matter if you went on to continue acting in movies, television, and on stage for the next 46 years. Once an Oompa Loompa, you are permanently non-notable. (Unless one of the cool kids creates the article, of course.) 209.149.113.5 (talk) 20:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I understand your frustration (as one who's written close to 700 articles since 2003; and one who's had numerous other contributions deleted/reverted). But I'd strongly caution you about carrying on with this "in-crowd" stuff.  There is no in-crowd.  There is no cabal.  There is no inner sanctum.  Learn that early, and learn to deal more realistically with the challenges Wikipedia can throw at you.  Help is always available.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  20:34, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * There are however, cliques which gain control over certain articles or areas. One of the worst problems in Wikipedia is the "PhD"s, who insist on keeping all articles they control in a state that can only be read by those who hold advanced degrees.  Hence the need for a separate Simple Wikipedia, as opposed to those articles being the intro to each of ours.  StuRat (talk) 20:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * (laughing) You really think that's what the Simple English Wikipedia is? --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 04:13, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * During Wikipedia's narcissistic "blackout" a couple of years ago, I worked some on the Simple English site. It's surprisingly challenging, as it requires putting oneself into the shoes of someone who is not broadly fluent in English. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:22, 9 June 2017 (UTC)