Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Houston McCoy

Jimbo Wales raises some valid points in this discussion. We should be deleting articles about WP:BLP subjects where we do not have sufficient data (in the form of coverage from reliable third party publications) in order to write a biography. Unfortunately, however, we seem to keep such articles in rare cases, such as voice actors with long lists of credits but no coverage AT ALL. I look forward to citing this very discussion in the future for reference. JBsupreme ( talk ) ✄ ✄ ✄	 07:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It is a tricky matter, and I think a fair amount of discussion and good faith thinking about it is necessary. Different biographies bring with them different contexts.  There are a great many important ancient philosophers, for example, about whom we have very little standard biographical information, but it would not make sense to delete them, as they are remembered for what they are important for (their ideas as handed down through the ages) as opposed to how many kids they have, where they went to school, etc.
 * It could be similar for the example you cite: as long a voice actor has had a long and rich career, and there are no random tabloid scandals to bring in a WP:BLP violation situation, it seems likely that a long list of credits is fairly harmless as an article.
 * The problem that I see has to do with people whose entire life is known to us in only a bizarre and limited way through tabloid coverage of one or more specific events in their lives.
 * A too-simple statement of the principle we are considering would be more flawed than what we have now. I think there is hope in this area, though, because most everyone can get that context matters, and "enough information to write a proper biography" isn't ever going to be a mechanistic formula, but a matter of judgment about which - I think - most people can generally agree.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Taking your example of a voice actor with an article consisting of a long list of credits, that is ony 'half fine' if the article itself is presented as a resume in the hope of asserting notability, potentially to get more work. There comes a point where notability has been established and the actor merits inclusion, but before that the actor is touting for more work.
 * I'm not arguing for more regimentation, there is too much rule quoting as it stands, simply adding, I think, to your view that we need to make value judgments on a case by case basis and sometimes ignoring guidelines provided we justify ignoring them. But that is where the wisdom of crowds makes life very difficult. In business, of you want to slow things down, you get a committee to solve a problem! In the same way we have barrack room lawyers who wish their voices to be heard whether for or against rational decisions.
 * It's your concept; sometimes it bites good sense in the backside. So how would you address that? Or would you even address that, hoping that a further pass at good sense would prevail? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)