Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brendan Andolsek Bradley

Add links
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. Jujutacular talk 13:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Andolsek Bradley

[edit]
Brendan Andolsek Bradley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to have originally been created as a copyright violation per the edit summary ([1]). None of the sources are reliable, and google searches don't show anything notable either. Delete per WP:ENTERTAINER. Nomader (Talk) 04:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Has had significant roles in multiple notable (italics mine) films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.
Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. JNW (talk) 02:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • His career can be verified through the works themselves, and the notability of the works is determined through their own coverage in multiple reliable sources, even if some might (currently) lack a Wikipedia article. If you do not believe IMDB belongs as an EL to show his career, this is not the place to argue that point, as consensus has long allowed it as an EL and no one is asserting that being in the IMDB database confers any sort of notability. In meeting WP:ENT, verified to the works themselves, one does not need to also have a cult following, nor must one make some "innovative" contribution to a field of entertainment to still be determinable as notable through Wikipedia's criteria for such. While it is obvious you disagree, and you are entitled to such an opinion, my own is that 14 episodes of Squatters (TV Show), 3 episodes of The Legend of Neil, and named appearances in The Last Harbor, Love Conquers Paul, September 12th, Redwoods, and Meteor Apocalypse are enough to meet WP:ENT. And we have another consideration as well, as his works as a stage writer and screenwriter have themselves been critically reviewed in multiple reliable sources... bringing him in as notable under WP:CREATIVE. Again, no matter its origins, the article is now Wikipedia's... and style and tone are best addressed through regular editing. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why, you too are entitled to an opinion; Wikipedia is good that way! One is less invested in having their opinion validated than in getting this right. Your point re: tone being addressed through editing was understood the first time. I mention IMDB because you seemed to use it as a reference point above--I've no interest in debating whether it belongs as an external link. To the matter at hand: If it's established that the films are notable, and his roles were significant, then he would meet notability guidelines. Few of the current sources are valid, and I'm not clear about the multiple reliable sources you've referred to. JNW (talk) 05:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated Bradley for deletion because I don't feel that any of the films he's participated in meet the criteria listed in WP:ENT: "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." (Emphasis added) None of the films he's participated in have been major roles in notable films per imdb (unless we're now considering an uncredited lifeguard in Lindsay Lohan's direct-to TV movie Labor Pains a notable role). If we analyze his plays, none of them have any significant independent coverage outside the subject, which violates WP:GNG for notability. I see where you're coming from, and I guess one could make the case that he's on a path to notability in the future, but as it stands right now he is most definitely not notable. Nomader (Talk) 01:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One does not judge an actor by the most lessor of their works, but by the entire body... even if the body includes some minor parts. ALL actors have had beginnings in minor roles. ALL. As for his plays, one does not judge a playwrite based solely upon one minor work that may have had minimal coverage. A playwrite is judged by their entire body of work... a cumilative body that neets GNG. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And so once Bradley has been in major, notable works, he should have an article. For now, his most major part in a notable movie was as an uncredited lifeguard in Lindsay Lohan's direct-to-TV movie Labor Pains... I don't think that meets the notability threshold. Nomader (Talk) 01:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With respects, we do not judge an actor only by his minor roles, as ALL actors have had minor roles in big-budget films, and ALL actors have had major roles in small-budget films. That is the nature of the industry and is reflected in any actor's career. So rather than picking only a one minor role as representative, we judge an actor by his entire body of work. And as he has had significant roles in notable works, he does qualify under WP:ENT. To repeatedly return to one uncredited role, acts to ignore those named roles he had in other productions that themselves meet the notability requirements of guideline and policy. No... he is not John Huston.... but then, he is also not Abner Gufflewitz. Wikipedia is not about the most famous... its about those who meet the threshold for inclusion... even if "just". And I am sure that it is a complete oversight on your part that his winning best actor at the easily notable Method Fest[4][5] in 2009 has not even been mentioned, even though that win validates his notability under WP:ANYBIO. From little acorns great oak trees grow... that is, not all actors begin with "top of the heap". Building a career takes a little time, and we are privilaged to be able to include him here. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JNW and per WP:ENT. Part of a group of self-promotional articles from the same person. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The individual passes WP:ENT and WP:CREATIVE. The article now belongs to Wikipedia and is to be judged on its own provable notability, not dismissed because of its newbie author. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can you cite specifically how he meets this criteria? Per WP:ENT, he must be a part of notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions, have a large cult following, or have innovative contributions through his career as an entertainer– I don't see how he fits any of these points. He does quite a few acting gigs, but all of them were for minor, non-notable films and web series. And per WP:CREATIVE, I don't see how he's seen as an important figure by his peers. He definitely has not created "a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." He is not a "significant monument" or won significant critical attention... Schmidt, I completely disagree with you. I just don't feel this guy is notable per any of the sources– if you can show me specific sources and examples of his notability, I'll re-write the article myself and completely rescind my nomination, but so far you've just been throwing out random passages from Wikipedia's guidelines that on the surface, he doesn't seem to meet. Nomader (Talk) 23:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • One is not required to meet ALL the criteria of WP:ENT. He does not need a cult following. He does not need have made innovative contributions to his industry. It is enough that he meets ENT through having had significant roles in of notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. That articles might not yet exist for some of these does not make them non-notable... it simply means the articles do not yet exist. And one is not required to meet ALL the criteria of WP:CREATIVE. He does not have to be seen as an important figure by his peers. Articles showing notability for his works do not have to already exist... as their non-existence means only that they do not yet exist. And if his works have received enough critical commentary and reviews, then THAT is where they receive their own notability and significance... allowing him in per CREATIVE. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I completely agree– what I was saying is that I don't feel he meets any of the criteria, let alone one of them. I participated in two deletion discussions which featured his work (I participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RASH Theater Company and I nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Squatters (TV series)), and I nominated Bradley because based on my research for the other articles, I noted that none of the films or series he had been in were notable enough for him to meet WP:ENT. I found that one play he wrote had one review from a local paper, but that should not be enough by a long shot to meet WP:CREATIVE. Either way, I don't feel he meets any criteria for either guideline– I'm usually rather reserved about deleting articles, but in this case I feel that there's just not enough notability for this article to exist. Nomader (Talk) 01:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • That some of his other films do not have articles does not make them non-notable. Their articles are being planned even now. And Squatters (TV series) will be returning as the show definitely has notability, even if poorly writen by its original author. I wonder why it was not listed on the film & TV related delsorts? Perhaps an oversight. But you may rest assured that I and others will not miss it the next time you nominate it, as it will then be properly delsorted, and will get more than two editors offering a comment in a discussion.....
          • Please assume good faith. I'm not some crazy deletionist or anything... the article was not a TV series, and as such was not listed on that delsort. It was mis-labeled in the title, it was fully a web series and had only ever been released on YouTube and other self-released internet video sites. But, if you'd like to create an article at Squatters (web series) that meets the notability criteria, I would be more than happy to read it and enjoy it. If it doesn't, then chances are I might nominate it for deletion. Either way, it's whatever... I'd rather spend my time creating articles and reviewing featured content then debating about an AfD. If you want to re-create it, feel free to let me know and I'll try to help gather up sources if I can find any, but my last search was pretty fruitless. Nomader (Talk) 07:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • And that oversight aside, you missed lots of potential sources for this individual when deciding to nominate based upon other articles... most importantly, his winning best actor at the quite easily notable Method Fest[6][7] which assures his notability under WP:ANYBIO. Anything else devolves into an uneccessary battle to discredit his already guideline supported notability. Might I simply suppose that in your research into other things, you simply missed it? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • And as promised, I'll re-write the article the next time I get the chance, didn't think to look into whether the Method Fest was a notable acting award or not– I only checked for the notable film criteria... pretty bad oversight on my part, apologies. Next time though, don't be a dick. You pretty much insinuated that I'm a deletionist hack that goes around deleting articles without checking them for sources, when in fact I asked you quite some time ago "Can you cite specifically how he meets this criteria?", and you just started debating the policy with me. And stating pretty much that I'd put any article you make up for deletion regardless of the criteria as you insuated with Squatters is rather demeaning as well. Just try to be more civil next time... AfD really isn't worth getting this angry over. That said, I'm withdrawing this nomination per Schmidt's evidence of notability, if an administrator wants to close this. Again, apologies for not checking out the award more thoroughly. Nomader (Talk) 07:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thanks for the wihdrawal, and apologies to you as well. As I never saw Squatters until it got usefied, I will not send it to WP:Incubation until it has a much stronger set of references. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 17:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • It's quite alright, no worries– if you find the sources for Squatters, let me know, I'd be interested in helping you write it. I'll tell an administrator that I'm withdrawing my nomination per your evidence of notability. Nomader (Talk) 23:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • As there are still a couple deletion !votes who have not revisited the discssion since I brought up WP:ANYBIO, a closer will read through the discussion itself. However, the simplest way to "withdraw" is to <s>strike through</s> your nomination comment far above... and immediately below it you can either note "nomination withdrawn" or even vote a "keep"... with perhaps a comment that you have reconsidered based upon this later part of the discussion. As for Squatters, I now have it userfied, and will perform some major cleanup tommorrow. i'll invite you over to look in and assist. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yep, I left a note on Ron Ritzman's talk page but I figured I had to do something like that and he confirmed my suspicions. AfD isn't usually my cup of tea so I wasn't really familiar with the closing procedures. Sure, just drop me a note on my talk page if you want and I'll see what I can do to help. I'll try to get working on Bradley's article as well if I get the time, which still seems to be copied from other websites per the article's first edit summary ([8]) Nomader (Talk) 05:25, 28 September 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brendan_Andolsek_Bradley&oldid=1082393237"