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. Shimeru (talk) 18:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noah Ringer (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)

Speedy declined. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER and would do so even if sourced. One upcoming film role, one rumour, and one television appearance do not amount to notability, or anywhere near it. Has previously been deleted for the same reasons. Rodhullandemu 16:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This page has been deleted before and has not become any more notable since then. I Feel Tired (talk) 20:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silverseren^C 21:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silverseren^C 21:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have added some references. Actually, Rodhullandemu, it is enough if it is sourced, if you read WP:ENTERTAINER more closely. The basic criteria stands alone. The Additional Criteria, which is specific for different things, states, "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability."

This means that if he is sourced properly, then he would still meet notability standards. For these reasons, I vote keep. Silverseren^C 21:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of the "Delete" votes in the last Afd cited WP:BIO and WP:GNG as well as WP:ENT. I thought it would just be cruel to add these to the equation, but I have been watching the recent desperate efforts to make this article viable according to our standards. Best of luck with the {{rescue}}, but as long as editors persist in adding unsourced content, rumour (what!!!) and breaches of copyright from the Avatar wikia, I will be strictly applying WIkipedia policies, and you should learn to live with that, or rise above it and make this article worthy of being here. So far, it ain't. Rodhullandemu 21:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been adding reliable sources and doing what I can. I've also just added a reference that proved the "rumor" true. So, have fun with that. Silverseren^C 21:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. If you can turn a shed into a mansion, fine. Rodhullandemu

• Comment I would ask that Rodhullandemu stop removing information from the article. After this AfD is concluded, if it ends with Keep, then it can be discussed whether certain information is notable or relevant enough to keep in. Silverseren^C 22:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. The basics are not negotiable, particularly WP:BLP, WP:V, and WP:RS, and these are policies, not guidelines, and certainly not "suggestions", whether an article is up for deletion or not. An article, particularly a biography, lives or dies by its sources. As for inclusion, apart from the above policies, WP:BURDEN applies, and it's just not good enough to include unsourced content in the optimistic expectation that a source will magically turn up later, when you can be arsed to do so. It's fundamental to the values of Wikipedia that if it ain't sourced right up front, it goes. No "later"; no "ifs", no "buts". When we are talking about real people, our legal responsibility is to get it right, and get it right now. It's not that difficult to achieve, if the sources are there, but later is not an option. Rodhullandemu 22:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um...thank you for that, except it has absolutely nothing to do with the content you are attempting to remove. All of the policies you mentioned are about verifiability and notability. WP:BURDEN is about removing unsourced information. All of the information in the article is currently sourced, so that doesn't apply at all. So...i'm not entirely sure what your argument is here. Silverseren^C 23:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. WP:BURDEN, which you obviously have not read, is about the responsibility of editors to justify their edits; that follows from WP:V, if nothing else, and follows on to WP:RS. I'll make my argument quite plain, however: Whatever sources you might find to support the notability of this article, our requirements in this respect are not negotiable and are independent of your personal opinion. Thus far, we have a young actor who has one role in one film, and a potential role in another. Per WP:ENT, that is not even close to establishing notability, and the sooner you realise this, the better. Rodhullandemu 23:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You are accusing me of not having read WP:BURDEN? *sighs* It says in the first two lines there that "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." It goes on to discuss how original research and synthesis should not be created from the references. It then goes on to discuss how unreferenced material can be removed, but the person that removes it should make a good attempt first at finding sources for the information being removed, in order to confirm that it should be taken out. So, like I said, WP:BURDEN has nothing to do with the information you are trying to remove from the article, as all of the information is properly sourced. Silverseren^C 23:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• And, as I stated before when I first commented in this discussion, failure to meet WP:ENT (and it is only failure for now, at least) does not mean that the person is not notable as "A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability." Thus, if a person still meets the basic criteria for inclusion, which is "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject," then even if they fail WP:ENT, or any other additional criteria for that matter, they are still notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Silverseren^C 23:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I do not believe it is me that has to review the policies. Silverseren^C 23:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• If only you'd spend as much time finding reliable sources for this article, that appears to mean so much to you, than wikilawyering at me, perhaps you'd be making some headway with it; as it is, I still don't yet see the article becoming a defensible inclusion here. I recommend you stop having a go at me, and actually deal with the deficiencies in the article. Rodhullandemu 23:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, you're accusing me of Wikilawyering (violating the spirit of policies) now? And i'm not following your edits or stalking you in any way, so i'm not hounding you. Im trying to explain, according to policy, why the subject of the article is notable. You have yet to actually respond to my explanations in a policy-based manner, you've just been accusing me of things. And I have been working on the article and I will continue to do so. You also have yet to actually point out any deficiencies either. Silverseren^C 23:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are "trying to explain, according to policy, why the subject of the article is notable", that is best addressed by adding reliable sources to the article to support that proposition. Meanwhile, while you are not doing that here, which would be somewhat irrelevant, since what is under consideration is the article, as opposed to this discussion, which is directed to our policies and guidelines. The bottom line is that if you can make this article defensible with respect to WP policies, you should do so. And if you can't, or won't. you should go elsewhere. Rodhullandemu 00:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've already added sources to the article, I did that a while ago. Thus, since I have already done that, i've been stating my stance and you have been ignoring it. I have been explaining in this discussion just how the subject of the article is notable, in regards to the sources that I have already added. I really don't know why you keep acting like there are no sources at all. Silverseren^C 00:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However much you struggle and wriggle, reliable sources are not negotiable, and those you've cited are shite, self-published, unreliable, and, it has to be said, fall below our normal criterion of objectivity. I'd rather have no sources than self-satisfying twats. If you don't think that's a problem, you are coming from nowhere. Rodhullandemu 00:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find it interesting that you would consider Variety, USA Today, LIFE, and the Los Angeles Times to be "shite, self-published, unreliable, and...below our normal criterion of objectivity". I think pretty much every single user and administrator would disagree with you there. Silverseren^C 00:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested. It's up to those seeking to make this article defensible, not me. I'm not here to mend your inadequacies, although I will assist if you ask me politely. Rodhullandemu 00:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you've completely lost me by this point. I HAVE made the article defensible by the sources i've added and I HAVE been stating my defense here in this discussion, but you haven't been listening. You keep trying to use policies that have nothing to do with what you're saying. WP:BURDEN is about unsourced material. The article is sourced with reliable sources, so that policy needs no longer apply to it. Silverseren^C 00:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think that's enough, both of you have valid points but are obviously getting a bit upset. You're both experienced editors and know that this back-and-forth is not going to end in anything constructive and is not going to even be ready by the closing admin (most of it is not even about the article, but about each others' behavior and each others' understanding of policy), so can we all agree to WP:STICK and focus on letting the AfD run its course? And if no one minds, can I {{collapse}} this? rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to argue anymore. I'm done. I would rather you not collapse all of it, as some does relate to the article. I'm fine with you collapsing back to the undent 8 comments before yours though, the one by Rod that starts "If only you'd spend as much time". Everything between us from there to here hasn't really been about the article, but the stuff before it was. Silverseren^C 03:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: "fails WP:ENTERTAINER" is not in of itself enough of an argument for deletion, those guidelines just mean "someone who meets these minimum criteria is probably notable", not "someone must meet these criteria to be notable". Since he has the lead role in a major film (not just any role, but the lead role; not just any film, but a big and widely-known film), he meets the GNG. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per rʨanaɢ (talk) Evalpor (talk) 06:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A wise pirate captain once said: "the code is more what you'd call 'guidelines' than actual rules". So you have to interpret WP:Entertainer for every situation new. Since the first nomination for deletion a lot happened. Today even I heard of that dude. Furthermore: He's not having a role in an unknown art house movie, he's the protagonist of an upcoming blockbuster trilogy. If you search that kid on the internet you already find some fan sites. Hive001 (talk) 08:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:ENT is superceded by WP:GNG--Sodabottle (talk) 20:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I can't believe someone nominated the lead actor in a movie that big. Click on Google news link at the top of the AFD. He gets plenty of coverage. Plus common sense, the guy is clearly notable. Dream Focus 05:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree, this kid is clearly notable. Just because someone hasn't heard of him (I haven't) doesn't mean he fails WP:GNG. The Los Angeles Times, Variety, USA Today say differently. —Mike Allen 06:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep rʨanaɢ, Hive001, and Dream Focus, I don't think Ringer fits WP:ENT. While it's true that WP:ENT is not Wikipedia policy, I think it does have its merits. Most of Ringer's coverage are brief comments in articles about the movie, not about Ringer himself. The few articles solely about Ringer are extremely short. That said, I think that he has great potential to be extremely notable in the future, and while it is not good policy to make articles based on how notable you think someone will be in the future, it would be a waste of writing time and effort to recreate this article later. I say write this off as something that should've been caught earlier and keep the article, then delete it after the movie is produced if he still doesn't fulfill WP:ENT. --PostScript (talk) 05:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per significant coverage in reliable sources. That's more important than marginal debates around the edges of WP:ENT. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets WP:GNG by some margin, regardless of any other guidelines. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:35, 24 April 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.