Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Jasper

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. anthony[cfc] 23:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Frank Jasper

Frank Jasper (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete - there do not appear to be the requisite independent reliable sources establishing the subject's notability. Article is sourced by Chamber of Commerce ad/listing and blogs. Otto4711 13:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete per nom, not a notable person and could easily be handled by a CSD A7 Thewinchester (talk) 13:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete The actor's only claim to fame was being the villain in Vision Quest. The article does not assert his notability. Also there are not any verifiable sources listed (blogs definitely don't count). --Cyrus Andiron 15:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Just because it's not in the newspaper or an easily accessible Internet source doesn't make it any less true. Do a little research on the subject and you'll find that what I sourced is 100% accurate. This individual played a major part in a story beloved by thousands of American High School wrestlers who grew up in the 1980s. Ask any of them to tell you about their favorite movie and they'll almost unanimously say "Vision Quest". There is really no source of information for finding out about Frank Jasper outside of a Wikipedia page. The rest of the information is spread out over various areas that a person would have to track down themselves, and only if they knew where to look. I happen to know a little about Frank Jasper and created the article so that the information would be centrally located. As long as you've got information on Wikipedia such as how many different hairstyles Madonna has had, there should always be a niche place for information like this - even if YOU are not personally interested in it. Leave well enough alone, why don't you? Mister Jinxy 19:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not a primary source. If the article can't be attributed to reliable sources then the article has no place on Wikipedia. Verifiability is the standard, not truth. If you're a Frank Jasper fan, you might want to look into creating a tribute website of some sort. Pointing out that other articles exist (I don't think there's one on Madonna's hairstyles but I could be wrong) is not a valid argument for keeping this article. Otto4711 19:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I consider a Chamber of Commerce Listing to be fairly reliable. Mister Jinxy 20:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  • It's a directory of businesses in the area, not an independent reliable source substantially about Jasper. It does not establish notability. Otto4711 21:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep -- there are articles for far less notable things on Wikipedia, and it's a bit of a waste of time arguing over this particular one. This time would be better spent improving this and other articles. Just my two cents. --Lukobe 22:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • This is still arguing WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and it does not justify keeping this article. If you know of other articles which do not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, please feel free to nominate them. Otto4711 22:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

*Undecided Comment Per Wikipedia:Notability (people), Jasper potentially gains notability by having a significant role in a notable film (which is confirmable by IMDb). Thus, I find this hardly speediable. The lack of coverage by independent third-party sources, though, swings the notability debate the other way. Which trumps which? --Tractorkingsfan 02:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Not to Wikilawyer, but WP:BIO states the actor should have significant roles, plural. Further, I wouldn't necessarily say that his role in Vision Quest qualifies as "significant," given his total screen time was about eight minutes and he had like three lines of dialogue. Shute was by and large a Macguffin as opposed to a character and I can't see that Jasper's appearance in that film is sufficient to confer notability, especially in light of the apparant total lack of sources of which Jasper himself is the subject. Otto4711 13:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment on WP:BIO Be careful when citing WP:BIO. It does not say that an actor "should have significant roles, plural." Instead, it says that "People who satisfy at least one of these criteria probably merit their own Wikipedia articles" - and significant roles is only one of those. Another criterion is "Has a large fan base or a significant 'cult' following." Mister Jinxy has certainly alleged that the article does have a cult following. If sources to that effect are provided, then the article would meet WP:BIO regardless of the number of significant roles Mr. Jasper has had. Also, remember that WP:BIO is "is only a guideline, and should not be used an absolute test of notability."-Fagles 21:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Alleged is precisely the problem. --Tractorkingsfan 03:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment on speedies at least it demonstrates that this was not a reasonable speedy. Speedy is for incontestable deletions. And "assert" includes giving any evidence that a reasonable person might possibly think notable,such a starring in a movie. There is a real need for speedy for the true junk, and it should not be overused when it is not obviously applicable.DGG 04:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - This article is still in the beginning stages of being created. It needs work. I say keep it and expand upon it. --ZeWrestler Talk 15:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep - Otto, it seems that you're the only one really pushing for deletion. What's your agenda? Besides, Shute was not the McGuffin. You've watched too many Alfred Hitchcock movies. Rather, Shute was the villian of the movie and the entire reason for Louden's quest, and thus, the entire driving force behind the whole story. The fact that the actor who played him basically fell off the Earth and was never seen again on film for all intents and purposes makes him noteworthy. Top that with the fact that he ended up becoming some type of jedi herbalist kung fu master, and that's Wikipedia at its finest. What is the harm in having this article about him? Surely there are worse articles to go after. Sorry if that doesn't conform to your tortured definition of what is and is not acceptable on Wikipedia, but when I was a kid, this place used to be a fun and interesting cavalcade of information where you could discover and be astounded by facts like that. Mister Jinxy 17:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Well of course my agenda is to roam Wikipedia deleting the most delightful of all the articles, all the while twirling my moustache while intoning "Muah-ha-ha-ha!" WP:NOHARM is not a convincing argument. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a convincing argument. "Wikipedia at its finest" is not a convincing argument. I have no objection to an article on Jasper or any other subject, provided that it is sourced according to the requirements of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Dig up some sources. Otto4711 19:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete In light of Otto4711's comments, I must reluctantly change to delete. Though I am oddly compelled by Mister Jinxy's argument regarding Wikipedia. Truth be told, however, the subject must be covered significantly by independent, third-party sources or he doesn't belong on Wikipedia. --Tractorkingsfan 19:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Get off your high horse and check your condescending attitude, Otto. And while you're at it, don't presume to start barking orders at me, either. Last time I checked, you're just an editor with the same rights and priviliges as the rest of us. No more. No less. Mister Jinxy 22:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I like you; you're silly. Otto4711 23:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Canvassing. Mister Jinxy has canvassed many talk pages to ask people to keep this article. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] — coelacan — 10:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Is that not allowed? Many when articles I care about are up for deletion, people inform me via the talk page. --ZeWrestler Talk 13:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Canvassing is a very thin line. The main concern is with the messages; they should be as neutral as possible. Saying You participated in similar discussions, I would value your input as long as it is sent to all who participated in the discussion, would be fine, as would sending messages to the creator/major contributors of the article. However, sending messages to all fans of the subject, asking for their support is blatant canvassing. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 17:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • It's a matter of whether or not it's disruptive. Asking people to vote support, to sway the vote against a disinterested consensus, that's disruptive. — coelacan — 18:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: This deletion proposal seems premature. The article is still quite new. If an article doesn't make a claim of notability, and you are not able to add one, it is usually best to notify the creator of the article and give them an opportunity to improve the article. This guideline on notability explains a good process to follow; as it explains "Often, the author is able to add a claim, but didn't know one was required." I have added the notability tag to the article. Please keep in mind the Guide to Deletion's admonishment: "First do the necessary homework and look for sources yourself, and invite discussion on the talk page by using the notability template, if you are disputing the notability of an article's subject. Notability is not subjective. The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth." -Fagles 21:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd say give the "delete" voters a bit of credit. The responsible thing to do before voting delete for reason of lacking sources is to look around for some sources. I don't see how you can say we haven't. And it's difficult to demonstrate the absence of something. So far, and I could very well be proven wrong on this, they simply aren't there. --Tractorkingsfan 03:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Sources? Aren't we really just talking about sources on the Internet that YOU are able to find readliy accesible without having to engage any effort such as getting off your posterior and doing any kind of responsible investigation? Let's be honest here. That's really what you're saying.
Sorry to butt in in the middle of your train of flawless logic here, but you have got to be kidding. Considering your inability to read the guidelines and policies regarding notability and references on this website, your accusing me of being lazy for not searching the library for the undoubtedly easy-to-find 700 page tome regarding the exploits of Frank Jasper the bit-actor/hero to high school wrestlers/kung fu herbalist is just hilarious. But you're right, that chamber of commerce thing does go miles. I'm done, no more arguing. --Tractorkingsfan 04:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Fact is, I have given you Imdb. I have given you his Chamber of Commerce listing. This individual is who I say he is: A once semi-famous actor who disappeared for a number of years and turned up in some completely incongruous place - an f'ing jedi herbalist master working some clinic out of Big Sur.

In my view, either that is sufficient enough to warrant an entry or it's not. I can very easily contact Mr. Jasper and ask him point blank whether the information is true or not. If I did, would that be a sufficient source for you doubters?

However, what I really need to understand what is the basic underlying problem behind this post. Either he is not "notable" enough for a Wikipedia entry (though everyone knows there are worse subjects out there on these hallowed pages - and please spare me your recitations of the codes and penumbras of the Wikipedia laws) or there is not sufficient supporting evidence to sustain his claim that he is a person of noteworthiness. Either way it's simple: Either he is who I have said he is, or he is no who I have said he is. The evidence points out that he is. Therefore, the problem seems to be is he eithe noteworthy enough for Wikipedia or he is not.

I think it does.

I started editing Wikipedia because I thought it was a fun place to bring information that nobody knew about. Now I find myself arguing with people wrapped up about specific rules and regulations and what can't go up and what should be deleted. It's depressing.

This is one simple stupid article. Why get wrapped around the axle about it. Perhaps in the future there'll be more to share. But why delete it now? Give it a chance to flourish and blossom. Like a small fungus. Not a weed.

I think Wikipedia is a worse place when we start deleting silly but meaningful articles like this. The bandwith is not costing you anything. Besides, there are certainly worse subjects we could be talking about, though for some I'm sure that it doesn't meet their tortured and restrictive definition of what's appropriate and what is not.

Let freedom ring, for Pete's sake. God bless America and all that jazz. Vote for Opus (I'm drunk),

Mister Jinxy 04:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Subject is simply not notable. Sources include blog entries from his patients? I appreciate the effort made in keeping the entry up, but this just lacks justification. janejellyroll 04:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nothing here suggests notability. IMDB strives to have an entry on everyone who's ever been on film, so they are no indication of notability. A chamber of commerce entry exists for every business in any nation that maintains such records; obviously not every business is notable so this is no indication of notability either. Blog mentions are not considered reliable sources and are not usable for meeting notabilty criteria either. This article appears to be factual, but that's not the same as saying we ought to have the article. This falls well short of the bar. — coelacan — 08:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you've made your feelings on the subject abundantly clear, Coelacan. Let the others *burp* speak. Tractorhead, you disappoint me. Check in the library under "A" for "Frank Jasper is AWESOME". That's where that 7 volume set of his "AMAZING" exploits can be found.

Mister Jinxy 16:22, 14 April 2007 (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.