Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joel Manning

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 ~ trialsanderrors 08:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joel Manning

Joel Manning (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Shameless vanity / self-promotion. Written by user:Joelmanning. -- RHaworth 00:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment. The use of the word "vanity" as a reason for deletion is now strongly discouraged per WP:COI#Importance of civility. Please instead use "Conflict of interest". Jpe|ob 00:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. I've already started work wikifying and copyediting this article. Just because an article is vanity/not NPOV doesn't mean it's not a valid article. With some work, this could become a decent article. [Iridescence]  talk • contrib 01:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Seems to be an up and coming star, has an IMDb entry and a personal website, comes up top on Google search, and quite possibly recognisable from his movie appearances. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 01:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Very Weak Keep -- Fairly obvious self promotion, but person seems to be edging towards notable. As such some claims, such as television appearences, need to be cited. Otherwise Delete -- wtfunkymonkey 01:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Very weak keep Despite obvious self-promotion, and thanks to major cleanup by Iridescence. He is clearly notable. Still needs an opening sentence ("Joel Manning is an American actor/dancer, blah blah blah..."). Oh, and hand slap user:Joelmanning. Wavy G 02:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per nom. - Akaneon 12:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
    Comment Huh? Wavy G 19:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
User was indef-blocked for trolling and personal attacks. Please disregard. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 02:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Subject fails the central requirement of WP:BIO. No evidence of multiple features in national cultural publications. Citing an IMDB listing and a personal website are both of relatively little value under this guideline. I googled several pages deep and found no media mentions in notable publications, and not much that isn't either an automatic listing (IMDB) or Joel Manning-created content. There's no independent fan website. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Darkspots 02:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Wikipedia is not an actor/dancer database, regardless of whether an article is self-promotional in nature. This subject shows no indication of coming close to passing WP:BIO with his various bit parts/extra roles. He is not "clearly notable". Look at his IMDB entry - "Dancer" (in Clerks II and Jackass 2 and others) and "Lovin' Spoonfull #2 Bass Player" and "Zombie #2" etc. are not major roles. The "Mike Nesmith" role is also a bit part or at best a minor speaking role in one episode[1]. So he is liked enough by the producers of American Dreams that they gave him bit part roles on more than one episode. He also got a couple of single episode bit parts (as a background dancer for a single scene in the most recent[2]) on not-well-known sitcoms. This is not encyclopedically notable. Its not notable enough for a magazine. This is not even "up and coming" unless we work for his agent (and besides, no crystal balling on Wikipedia). Allowing articles like this would mean open season on Wikipedia for every struggling/"up and coming" Hollywood actor with a couple of TV bit part credits on their resume Bwithh 02:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
    I see what you mean; the article is somewhat deceptive. At first glance, he appears to have an impressive body of work. I don't know what the show "American Dreams" is about, but I assumed from reading this that he had some kind of recurring role playing various celebrities (?). And stating that he is in Clerks II and Jackass II doesn't help. I guess I was also assuming more significance on this accident he had (overcoming disability to return to acting, etc.), but upon second glance it appears to just be filler. Changing my vote, unless something more noteworthy can be provided. Wavy G 03:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I looked around a bit and it looks like American Dreams had a gimmick that every episode, or most episodes, they would recreate musical acts that appeared in the 1960s TV music show American Bandstand - these do not seem necessarily to have anything to do with the plotline of the American Dreams episode (maybe some "theme" resonance). In an episode in the third season, a performance by The Monkees on Bandstand is recreated. It looks Joel Manning was part of this performance (with 3 others) as Mike Nesmith. Bwithh 04:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete per Bwithh. Just an extra in a couple of movies. 1 google result (IMDB). article is self promotion -- Coasttocoast 03:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I did say "bit part" not just extra roles. ( According to your own blog entry, your most recent sitcom dance role was not a major role. We're unfamiliar with SAG terminology, but this is an encyclopedia, not a SAG database. Okay, let's call your roles "principal roles as defined by SAG", but there's still no encyclopedic notability Bwithh 05:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Bwithh. TJ Spyke 05:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Bwithh and the fact he has never been mentioned in a newspaper indexed by NewsBank. The only mention outside IMDB and Wikipedia I found was on TV.com[3], which like IMDB, indexes everyone who ever steps foot inside a studio. -newkai t-c 05:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep despite the self-promotion, this person is mildly notable. Atlantis Hawk 07:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, Bwithh, et al. Robertissimo 08:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This up and coming actor does not yet meet the notability requirements, as per Bwithh and CoastToCoast --Amists 10:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, obvious self-promotion vanity and not much mention in the internet, unless more sources (must be reliable) are being cited. --Terence Ong (C | R) 10:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete-despite hairsplitting by author on what constitutes an "extra", does not meet WP:BIO and has not played notable roles. Seraphimblade 12:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per lack of coverage, fails WP:BIO. Listing in IMDB alone is not notability. --Dhartung | Talk 12:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity article. Joel, please see my contribution to your talk page. WMMartin 14:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, per Bwithh, per WP:BIO. Also for slightly smarmy tone regarding our ignorance about SAG. Please list your biography with them. --Shrieking Harpy Talk|Count 14:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - per WP:BIO. Also, since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, there's no reason to have an article on an actor until they have established themselves. We aren't in the business of predicting who will get big (or for that matter of giving free publicity). →Bobby← 15:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep- seems reasonably notable -Toptomcat 16:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Folantin 16:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - WP:COI issues aside, he falls short of notability. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 17:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - bits parts are not sufficient notability. No reliable sources. -- Whpq 17:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete Clearly non notable and fails WP:BIO. Its a puff piece. scope_creep 20:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete per nom, per Bwithh and per WP:BIO. Xdenizen 21:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete fails WP:BIO and has WP:COI issues. Reads like a promo. Danny Lilithborne 22:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Bwithh. No way is the kid notable......yet. Ohconfucius 08:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - non-notable per Bwithh. Good notability research, congrats. Moreschi 17:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Bwithh's arguments for non-notability. Extras aren't actors.Montco 20:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete -- a mix of self-promotion, sob story and basic facts that belong on imdb. Pete Fenelon 01:44, 13 November 2006 (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.