Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angus Barnett

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. Synergy 23:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Angus Barnett[edit]

Working actor, but fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Unable to find any non-trivial coverage--even in the fansites, etc. Bongo matic 04:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Huge body of work for a supporting actor, but not much in sources toward him specifically. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, "fails to meet notability criteria, but keep anyway." I guess that's why WP:N is a guideline, not a policy. Bongo matic 06:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me expand on "in other words", thank you. Since the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, and his contibutions have been verified, it might reasonably be extrapolated that his many and onging contributions to film and television establish that he is doing something right enough so as to be called back time after time... itself an indicator of minor notability. The current sources show that even in his non-starring roles, he has caught the eye of reviewers... pretty good when one considers that major films can have dozens of supporting actors. A difficulty in finding immediate and less-than-trivial sources is hindered by his having to share press coverage with the likes of major stars such as Johnny Depp... where on the balance scale of who gets the coverage, it is obvious who is going to win. Guidelines are not ironclad rules, else each would not begin with the caveat "best treated with common sense and the occasional exception." My thought here is that if the article were to be kept, and a continued search for further sources undertaken... perhaps by United Kingdom wikipedians who have access to local resources inre their television and film industry (hardcopy articles and local library resources and the like) that I do not here in Southern California (though yes, I am still digging)... that further sources will likely appear. To err on the side of a cautionary keep might best serve to improve Wiki. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

week Keep All of these parts may be as supppporting actors, but there are great many of them. I conclude him a dedicated but not every successful professional, and the overall career perhaps worth an article. DGG (talk) 07:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I understand your arguments, but those seem like great reasons for inclusion in IMDb--where the subject of this article already has an entry. Bongo matic 10:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Character actors are under-appreciated but become notable with volume which this actor has done in numerous notable productions. Not every actor can be or should be a "star" but neither should their contributions to good theater and acting be dismissed as non-notable. -- Banjeboi 09:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That's a notable body of work. Alberon (talk) 11:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This rationale is confounding. If we were able to find authoritative sources that Joe Bloggs was an assistant auditor on 500 corporate audits--even if for notable corporations--nobody would suggest an article on him would be appropriate unless there were articles about him. Why different, just because the business is the movie business? Bongo matic 01:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep looking for better articles, but (and I know this doesn't count) he's a very familiar face to me on British TV. Alberon (talk) 08:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amusingly, Joe Bloggs does have his own article... but this AfD is not about him. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But his auditing oeuvre isn't mentioned or cited. Can you please find and add the ref? Bongo matic 02:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Send it to AfD and it will be WP:RESCUEed if it can be. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.