Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supernumerary actor

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 keep - NYC JD (make a motion) 21:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Supernumerary actor

Supernumerary actor (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article is problematic for two reasons.

  1. Major parts of it appear to be original research.
  2. The notability of the concept is in doubt; I found less than 100 nonwiki ghits with quotes.

It may be possible to merge and redirect the bare bones of this article to supernumerary, where it is mentioned, or to another target. YechielMan 05:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Neutral, it seems to me that some sort of sanity should be enforced between supernumerary actor, bit part, supporting actor, extra (actor), and the nonexistent acting corollary to walk-on. There seem to be minor differences in terminology between the theatre, opera, and film and TV, not to mention UK/US/non-English issues. --Dhartung | Talk 23:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment the AfD tag was removed by User:Fvarisco I have replaced it. Jeepday 03:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Additional Comment review of Special:Contributions/Fvarisco leads to consideration of WP:SPA
  • Delete the article is unreferenced to support it's content so fails both WP:N and WP:V by this omision. It contains several external links in the body of the article that do not support that assertions of the article but rather seem to be spam in violation of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines Jeepday 03:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Extra (actor) or, perhaps better yet, merge into the latter. Planetneutral 04:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as is to or, perhaps merge into an actor category. Article useful in research while writing book. Thanks. User:mm17nov@hotmail.com
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Doug Bell talk 12:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. As is, there are decent references for the terms existance and use in opera at least. I'd like to see more in-line footnoting of course. -Markeer 13:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand This is quite a specialized term and could be expanded and cleaned up. He does cite some good newspaper articles.User:mm17nov@hotmail.com
  • Comment The discussion on the AFD and the article are full of contributions by Single Purpose Accounts, I attempted to validate that the reference that are used to support the article. While I did find that some of the books have been published I was unable to validate that "Supernumerary" was used in any context in the reference. My research did seem to show that the term is used as described. Jeepday 02:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but of the two "votes" since it was relisted I know that I at least am not a single purpose account (and have the 1000 entries in my edit history to demonstrate that). User:mm17nov@hotmail.com had already "voted" before the relisting and now again since, but not like s/he was hiding that fact. The other people who have commented (Dhartung, Planetneutral, YechielMan) all have long edit summaries. What are these single purpose accounts that you're talking about? I can only see the one, and the "Username" in e-mail form pretty much let everyone know that. -Markeer 11:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment You may notice that all the "references" on the article are added by one of these Single Purpose Accounts, compare Edit 09:27, 16 February 2007 72.83.227.251 to edit 07:37, 16 February 2007 SmackBot You may also note that another single purpose account removed the AFD tag (I replaced it later). User:Markeer is the only non SPA voting keep. Redirect and/or Merge seems to be the most popular non-SPA vote (I voted delete, but would support merge and redirect, I placed merge tags appropriately yesterday) Jeepday 14:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Reply Well, I did in fact fail to notice User:Fvarisco (apologies) but for the others, I should mention that IP addresses are not Single Purpose Accounts, only user accounts can be (by definition). Noting the date tags of the edits by those addresses, I notice they are not concurrent, so my best guess is an editor whose system pulls different addresses from a server (extremely common). Please assume good faith and don't bite the newcomers. As for consensus on this AfD, I'm not emotionally attached to the page. The closing admin will make the final decision based on the discussion here, of course. -Markeer 15:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - needs inline refs, but the refs it does have satisfy notability. - Peregrine Fisher 18:59, 22 February 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.