Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Tomei
Source: 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 delete. TalkIslander 01:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Adam Tomei
- Adam Tomei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Fails WP:ENTERTAINER:
- Actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities:
- Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions — the roles have not been significant.
- Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following — no evidence of this.
- Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment — no evidence of this.
Bongomatic 15:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails WP:BIO and I figure the only reason someone bothered to create the article is because of the association with his sister. §FreeRangeFrog 20:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- apparently all the roles on the filmography were bit parts. Could be redirected to Marisa Tomei except it seems unlikely that article will ever have more than one sentence on him. Baileypalblue (talk) 22:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. Camw (talk) 04:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Like the nominator I have been unable to find evidence this person meets the inclusion criteria. - Mgm|(talk) 09:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The fact that the actor is credited with roles in notable productions is what is required to establish notability per WP:ENTERTAINER. See the current helpful discussion at Sonia Darrin Esasus (talk) 02:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Think you may want to dust off your reading glasses. The criterion is "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions" (emphasis added). Bongomatic 07:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- it's a tricky process to determine what "significant" in "significant role" means for the purposes of Wikipedia since we have no official polices or guidelines with respect to this. I would be satisfied to say that, even if someone has made a career of being an extra, a role in a notable film where the actor was credited as something other than an extra should qualify to make the role significant. Having at least two such roles would then meet criterion 1 of WP:ENTERTAINER. Unfortunately, I can't post a link to a Wikipedia document that would confirm this; this is my interpretation of a somewhat vaguely worded notability guideline and it is again my belief that the guideline is purposely worded vaguely so that we can apply fairly liberal criteria in trying to determine what qualifies as significant because, in the end, it really is a subjective judgment call. Esasus (talk) 11:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not really as tricky as you make it out to be. A role is significant for generally the same reasons that anything else would be notable—so if the character were singled out for attention in reviews in reliable sources (not just trivially mentioned in passing, such as stating who played it), that would be evidence in favor of a role's being significant.
- I haven't done that in this case (here I've just looked at where in the cash listings his roles show up), but in the past, I've taken a sampling of major reviews of each of a minor actor's films and searched to see if the actor's role or performance was covered in any detail. Time consuming, but if you wanted to demonstrate that any of the roles is verifiably significant, that would be a way. Bongomatic 11:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- it's a tricky process to determine what "significant" in "significant role" means for the purposes of Wikipedia since we have no official polices or guidelines with respect to this. I would be satisfied to say that, even if someone has made a career of being an extra, a role in a notable film where the actor was credited as something other than an extra should qualify to make the role significant. Having at least two such roles would then meet criterion 1 of WP:ENTERTAINER. Unfortunately, I can't post a link to a Wikipedia document that would confirm this; this is my interpretation of a somewhat vaguely worded notability guideline and it is again my belief that the guideline is purposely worded vaguely so that we can apply fairly liberal criteria in trying to determine what qualifies as significant because, in the end, it really is a subjective judgment call. Esasus (talk) 11:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't pretend to be an expert on what a significant role is, and I can only seem to find one review that mentions Tomei by name, other than in a cast listing, here it is "his Zen-cool 'creative' pose plays well against his laid-back studio directors (Paul Giamatti and Adam Tomei). I'm inclined to say that this makes his roles in general insignificant, but I'd love to be proven wrong. Cool3 (talk) 15:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Think you may want to dust off your reading glasses. The criterion is "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions" (emphasis added). Bongomatic 07:34, 26 February 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.