Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lightning Bear
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. Subject might be verifiable but reliable sources to establish notability are completely lacking. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Lightning Bear
Insufficient sourcing means notability not established an WP:V not met Spartaz Humbug! 11:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep did you do a Google search before you claimed could not meet WP:V, "Lightning Bear" stunt man brings up over 400 hits on google, he seems to have a very strong cult following, easily verifiable and seems to have an amazing amount of notability for a stunt man. Ridernyc (talk) 11:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- No Ghits on "Lightning Bear" news and 17,000 entries on the web are not unusual and even on the first page there are entries for other things on the term. Did you find any sources that met WP:RS? The article is unsourced and we don't verify information from fan sites of imdb. Please consider providing something better. Spartaz Humbug! 12:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- IMDB to star5t with, plus [1] [2][3]and to top it off [4].
- Are you trying to claim he is not in the films listed in IMDB, or are you claiming that being a stuntman in these movies is not notable enough? One I think it's all easily verifiable, two I think he is notable enough to have an article. I'm really puzzled by the citing of WP:V, notability I can understand but I don't see anything in the article that is not verifiable. Ridernyc (talk) 12:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I don't know how much you know policy so forgive me if this is covering ground you already know but of course being a stuntman doesn't make you notable. Both the bio guideline and the general notability guidelines talk about multiple independent reliable sources. That means you are notable not because what you have done but because of what people have written about you. There are certain classes of people whose position makes them inherently notable because their role inevitably means that people write about you. Obviously not every stuntman in a film deserves an article. So, the nub of my point is that this stuntman is not notable unless he has done something that has been written about in multiple independant reliable sources. That's the guldeline on bio notability. Verifiability is a core policy. Information in the wiki needs to be verifiable by these sources and cannot be original reasearch. Ghits are a very poor measure of notability which is why I asked you for sources. If verifying the information is so easy using reliable sources then I would be grateful if you could list the sources. Spartaz Humbug! 13:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Again what claim made in the article is not verifiable? There is no original research at all in the article. I can see your point about notability, but I totally fail to see an unverifiable claims or original research? Ridernyc (talk) 13:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- By definition its unverified if there are no reliable sources. Where can we go to verify the information in the article 0 by definition its original research if it was written without reference to reliable sources? Spartaz Humbug! 13:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Again what claim made in the article is not verifiable? There is no original research at all in the article. I can see your point about notability, but I totally fail to see an unverifiable claims or original research? Ridernyc (talk) 13:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I don't know how much you know policy so forgive me if this is covering ground you already know but of course being a stuntman doesn't make you notable. Both the bio guideline and the general notability guidelines talk about multiple independent reliable sources. That means you are notable not because what you have done but because of what people have written about you. There are certain classes of people whose position makes them inherently notable because their role inevitably means that people write about you. Obviously not every stuntman in a film deserves an article. So, the nub of my point is that this stuntman is not notable unless he has done something that has been written about in multiple independant reliable sources. That's the guldeline on bio notability. Verifiability is a core policy. Information in the wiki needs to be verifiable by these sources and cannot be original reasearch. Ghits are a very poor measure of notability which is why I asked you for sources. If verifying the information is so easy using reliable sources then I would be grateful if you could list the sources. Spartaz Humbug! 13:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Delete per nom. Rider, I think the point Spartaz is trying to make is yes, we can easily verify he appeared in these movies, however this alone does not in itself make him notable. Have there been any stories, articles, or anything by a reliable third-party source that talks about his career? It's not that we can't proven he's been in the movies, but just being in a movie doesn't make you notable. If that were the case, I should have an article as I was an extra in 3 movies filmed in Baltimore. Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:48, 17 January 2008 (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.
