Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zach Tyler Eisen (2nd nomination)
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. Flowerparty☀ 22:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Zach Tyler Eisen
Let's see, where to begin. First of, this is a non notable voice actor. A handful of non notable roles and one or two notable ones, but that's it. Also, I can find virtually no reliable third party sources with any information on this person. Just your average media sites like IMDB, TV.com, etc., which all say the same things, more or less. Also, this article appears to have been proded in the past. It expired but for some reason was never deleted. Also, this article was apparently nominated for deletion before but never deleted. I cannot think of what makes this guy notable or where to find information. An article is not needed for every actor out there. There are plenty of actors, probably some with more roles than him, that don't have articles on Wikipedia. So, yeah, those are my reasons for deleting this page. SkepticBanner (talk) 06:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:BIO#Entertainers. I'd think being the main protagonist in a popular children's program on a popular children's station is notable. Same thing goes with the show Little Bill. The article does have bare references, though... so we'd definitely have to find some other sources. phøenixMøurning ( talk/contribs ) 08:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - voice of the main character in an extremely popular series. I believe it's notable, and WP:Bio seems to agree. Canterbury Tail talk 12:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. I think the Avatar: The Last Airbender role alone fulfills the first bullet point of WP:ENTERTAINER; really can't speak for the rest. AnturiaethwrTalk 14:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Strong keep - Clearly fulfils WP:ENTERTAINER. asenine say what? 15:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep With the one primary role, and multiple secondary roles, he seems to meet the criteria for entertainers. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'll cover each of those 3 points. For the last one, it is easy enough to see that he isn't a unique actor. For the 2nd one, he doesn't seem to have a very large fanbase. For the first one, I fail to see the significant roles he has had. You might consider his role as Aang significant. But that is a significant role, not significant roles. Two of his movie roles aren't notable. As for the Ant Bully, that movie is mentioned mostly it seems in lists or as an example in articles about something else totally. At least half the the Ant Bully article's references aren't even specifically about it. That seems to qualify the Ant Bully as an average film. These days, it seems films get article on Wikipedia without lots of third party notability. As for Little Bill and The Backyardigans, those are small shows that little kids like to watch. Average little kid shows. I ultimately fail to see the notability here. A role in a notable TV show, I admit, a role in a film, very minor roles in two films, and some roles in non notable TV shows. That seems to add up to one notable role and a few non notable roles, and the I also fail to see any article specifically about him. According to the notability guideline, multiple notable roles are needed. This kid seems to have one notable role. If this article does qualify as notable, it seems it barely does. I'll admit I'm no expert on Wikipedia. Never have been. But in this instance, I think I know what I'm doing. SkepticBanner (talk) 00:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- So you're claiming that because his other notable shows are kids shows that they're not notable...? Why is this? Little Bill is a show that ran for five years on Nikelodeon (specifically Nick Jr.). Saying that he doesn't have a large fan base could be considered weasle words, as it's a generalization. Same thing goes with The Backyardigans. Again, just because you don't watch them/think they're popular (eerily similar to something like WP:POINT) doesn't mean they aren't. I'm in full support of every keep here, and if it will make you happy, I'll find you some sources. phøenixMøurning ( talk/contribs ) 02:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well, one of the possible criteria specifically said a large fan base. So I simply used those words. Do tell me what makes every TV show in existence notable. If you feel Little Bill is notable, please explain. Same goes for The Backyardigans. Yes, it would make me happy to see some sources. I mean, have those shows received awards like Avatar? In my book, Avatar qualifies as very notable due to the number of news articles about it and some other things. I am not claiming that the shows are non notable because they are kids shows. I just don't see why they are notable. I don't need to prove they aren't notable if it can't be proven they are notable. Same goes for his fan base. Can you show he has a large enough one? If not, no need for me to show he doesn't have one. I also take offence at your suggestion that I am deliberately messing up Wikipedia. I've long felt this kid isn't notable enough. I just decided to do something now. I just don't think that every voice actor with a small handful of roles, with at most two notable ones, but probably one notable one, needs an article on Wikipedia. If a role is automatically considered notable because it was a starring one, and I don't think this is the case, then I can name off the top of my head an actor who has starred in a few movies who doesn't have his own article on here. Tell me: What makes this kid notable enough? And as I said before, if he does pass, he barely does. SkepticBanner (talk) 03:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- First of all, let me apologize if I came off giving the notion that you're "messing up Wikipedia." Wasn't my intention. Secondly, like I said before at WP:ENTERTAINER. The very first bullet states that they must have "had significant roles or been featured multiple times in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions." I think you and I could both agree that being the protagonist in a popular children's program is definitely notable. I'm basing his notability on the fact that among children he has a recognizable fan base. Fans of the show are obviously going to know the protagonist. And to answer your question, yes. Little Bill has won awards from many respectable parties (see here). phøenixMøurning ( talk/contribs ) 04:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- That certainly improves the case to some extent for Little Bill, and by extension his role in it, being notable. But I still think that news articles are needed. I mean third party sources that have actually written about the subject. Also, to be honest, it wasn't my understanding that he had a large fanbase among children. I've not really seen that many fans of him. If you can show that he has appeared in more than one notable production, then that definitely improves the case for his notability. But I would say that in the event it is determined he satisfies notability requirements (and it looks like he will), it won't be by much. Something just makes me feel that he isn't as notable as what you generally see on Wikipedia, though this isn't that relevant. I just get the feeling that notability and verifiability standards on Wikipedia have become a little bit lax. While I now doubt this article will be deleted, I still support deletion. Also, a bit off topic, and not related to this AFD, but what does one do when an article that was proded and the prod expired but the article wasn't deleted do? And since this article was supposed to be deleted, why is it here? It's all a bit confusing for me. One idea floated around is that the article was deleted, and later recreated. Then somebody took the courtesy of confusing people by placing the old articles AFD on the new articles talk page. Still, I think that there simply isn't enough information on him at all. Virtually nothing other than a filmography can be made from reliable sources and like I said, I can't find much third party notability of him or most of his roles. But I'm seeing that his Little Bill role might be notable. I just never heard much about Little Bill, despite watching Nickelodeon quite a bit. Well, I'll still try to make my case for deletion, but if the article is considered notable enough, then I won't go against that. SkepticBanner (talk) 04:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Eh, prod'ding something doesn't necessarily mean it'll be deleted. I'm assuming your talking about the February 2007 prod'ding of the article. If the tag is on there for five days and no one objects (an objection usually is just someone removing the tag, which was the case) then the article is deleted. If someone objects, it sometimes is taken up at an AfD discussion, but that wasn't the case here. See WP:PROD for more info. No hard feelings from before, right? phøenixMøurning ( talk/contribs ) 04:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- That certainly improves the case to some extent for Little Bill, and by extension his role in it, being notable. But I still think that news articles are needed. I mean third party sources that have actually written about the subject. Also, to be honest, it wasn't my understanding that he had a large fanbase among children. I've not really seen that many fans of him. If you can show that he has appeared in more than one notable production, then that definitely improves the case for his notability. But I would say that in the event it is determined he satisfies notability requirements (and it looks like he will), it won't be by much. Something just makes me feel that he isn't as notable as what you generally see on Wikipedia, though this isn't that relevant. I just get the feeling that notability and verifiability standards on Wikipedia have become a little bit lax. While I now doubt this article will be deleted, I still support deletion. Also, a bit off topic, and not related to this AFD, but what does one do when an article that was proded and the prod expired but the article wasn't deleted do? And since this article was supposed to be deleted, why is it here? It's all a bit confusing for me. One idea floated around is that the article was deleted, and later recreated. Then somebody took the courtesy of confusing people by placing the old articles AFD on the new articles talk page. Still, I think that there simply isn't enough information on him at all. Virtually nothing other than a filmography can be made from reliable sources and like I said, I can't find much third party notability of him or most of his roles. But I'm seeing that his Little Bill role might be notable. I just never heard much about Little Bill, despite watching Nickelodeon quite a bit. Well, I'll still try to make my case for deletion, but if the article is considered notable enough, then I won't go against that. SkepticBanner (talk) 04:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't paying any attention to this article back then. I must have misinterpreted what I saw. I think somebody might have objected without my noticing. Yeah, that's it. But back on topic, my case for deletion rests above. Your case for keeping is also above. I think we'd best get back to debating about whether he is notable enough or not. SkepticBanner (talk) 19:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:41, 20 May 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.
