Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oakley Lehman

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. --Coredesat 06:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oakley Lehman

Oakley Lehman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article was originally speedy-deleted as CSD A7. DRV overturned, finding a claim of notability was present. Still, Delete, as the article currently lacks reliable sources, pending other opinions. Xoloz 16:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• The deletion review should have been closed as an endorsement of deletion. Two guys with a bee in their bonnet about speedy deletion do not constitute consensus for undeletion. Stop wasting our time. --Tony Sidaway 16:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

  If your time is that valuable, keep your snide comments to yourself. CSD are specific for a reason, yet admins excessively misapply those criteria. Your words act to promote tolerance of their ignorance. BigNate37 16:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

  See Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. --Tony Sidaway 16:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

  What really wastes time is unjustified CSDs deletions, which--if anyone notices--lead inevitably into Deletion Review, and then AfD. Easier to simply send here in the first place if there is some claim to notability and it looks like a prod would be removed. (I was not one of those commenting at the DelRev) DGG (talk) 21:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

  I think it will most likely emerge from this deletion discussion that the original deletion was completely justified. The person who listed it for undeletion was, I suspect, simply acting as a dog in the manger rather than considering what was best for Wikipedia. All anybody needed to do if he objected to the original speedy was to create a new, correctly sourced article, containing whatever verifiable information could be gleaned about this person, to a level that would render this article undeletable. This could have been done days ago. Instead of that we've had days and days of pointless discussion, followed by a mindlessly bureaucratic undeletion with a mindlessly bureaucratic nomination for deletion, and absolutely no attempt to create a new article. Stupid and wasteful of all our time. Nevertheless I commend User:BigNate37 for at least trying to improve the article. --Tony Sidaway 22:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, some quick Googling confirms the content. Needs Needed a little wikifying, but that's fine. Note that there is was a potential copyvio with http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1172599/bio. I've cleaned it up some [1], so bear that in mind. BigNate37 16:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice, unless thoroughly revised. No sources are given for the information. While a stunt-man with a long career may well establish notability, this article does not: it mentions instead that he is the friend of another actor, and names his wife, and names some actors whose stunts he did. A helpful article, by contrast, would name some specific films on which he's worked, and other career related information. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

  In the light of the absence of any reliable sources in the article, I've performed a Jimbo-style stubbing. Reliably sourced information about this person should be added. --Tony Sidaway 17:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

  I thought we did not remove content while material was on AfD--someone reverted it, of course, but it hinders the process--and wastes time.DGG (talk) 21:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

  I don't know where you got that thought from. It's wrong. Articles are open for editing at all times, and it's quite in order to stub down an article where it's full of unsourced statements. This applies especially strongly to articles about living persons. Your claim that the stubbing down was reverted is incorrect. User:BigNate37 has begun to add sourced information, where there was none before. --Tony Sidaway 22:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I dont think stuntmen are "major roles" in a movie. A search through google archives finds only trivial info on this person. Corpx 17:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, stuntmen are not inherently notable, if he is an example of someone outstanding in the field, then that's a different story, but this article doesn't say so. Corvus cornix 20:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete Stuntmen can of course be notable, but not just from the credits on a small number of movies.DGG (talk) 21:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete There is not even a claim of notability, this is speedyable. Until(1 == 2) 22:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, I would like a larger article and more sources, but as it is it passes to me. Him being friends with who he doubles for I don't think is needed. Callelinea 22:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete cannot see how this person is notable in any way. Bigdaddy1981
• Delete as unnotable stuntman. Nuff said. Eusebeus 10:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. On their own, IMDB references do not demonstrate notability per WP:BIO, so delete unless evidence of further reliable sources is found. However, I also agree with DGG that speedying this article was inappropriate, and it should have gone straight to AfD to start with. Walton^talk 13:45, 9 July 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.