Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caleb Foote

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. The weight of WP:PAG based arguments appears to establish a rough, but viable consensus in favor of keeping this article. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:50, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Caleb Foote (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NACTOR. Could find essentially no secondary sources that discuss him more in depth besides an interview with his alma mater. May be worth taking a look at other articles by same creator, they seem to be equally non-notable. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 16:57, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 17:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:13, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:15, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The work in film and video adds up to notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all none of these people have enough sourcing to show notability. IMDb and twitter are not reliable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:11, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural Comment - Connected AfDs are supposed be for pages that are associated with each other, such as a musician's article and his various album articles. This nomination makes a fairly specific statement about Caleb Foote's notability, but then grouped in several other people simply because they are also child actors. It is illegitimate to nominate all of them while only examining the first, and to vote in the same fashion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:02, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Doomsdayer520: In my experience, bundling has been used for grouping together many articles by the same author, and in this case I've bundled the other articles because they were created by the same author and have similar notability concerns, not simply because they're child actors. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 16:22, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Caleb Foote - under the WP:TOOSOON standard, because all he has so far are basic entries in industry directories and WP:ROUTINE cast listings. No comment on everyone else in the nomination unless they are spun out into their own AfDs with proper reasoning. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:05, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Doomsdayer520 I see all the actors listed on this AfD appeared on The Kids are Alright, so I guess they have that in common (and thus the procedural close won't stand). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Etzedek24 Andy Walken absolutely meets WP:NACTOR for significant roles in The Kids are Alright and A Christmas Story Live!, so that one should be struck or removed. Sawyer Barth could meet WP:NACTOR for roles in The Kids are Alright and Super Dark Times, but Super Dark Times revolved around the characters played by Owen Campbell (actor) and Charlie Tahan, so I find him a marginal case. The rest seem to fail the criteria. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:05, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jovanmilic97: Point taken on Walken. Seeing him as Ralphie should have clicked, combined with a recurring role on the other show. I'll strike it. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 19:11, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Comment No problem. Please don't erase my comment like you did on [1] though. I have reinstated it back. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:23, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry about that. Definitely not my intention, I just resolved the edit conflict improperly. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 19:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Artists are known by their work. The work iadds up to notability. Lightburst (talk) 20:09, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This actor has a significant, ongoing role in a network TV series. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:19, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NACTOR specifies multiple significant roles to be presumed notable, he just has one recurring role. Also, I don't think it's as important, but the show is not ongoing, it was cancelled after one season. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 23:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment A major problem with WP articles about many actors is that they only list screen roles. Caleb Foote's article has tables only for Film and video, and Television, and yet the lead para states that "He received the San Diego Theatre Critics Circle 2017 Craig Noel Award for Outstanding Male Performance for his role in Hand to God." So he has clearly had roles on stage, and at least one role notable enough to win an award, and yet his stage roles are not listed elsewhere in the article, and all the discussion here has focused on screen roles. His stage roles need to be taken into account as well. I will try to see what I can do. RebeccaGreen (talk) 06:20, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I believe that Caleb Foote meets WP:NACTOR with his roles in The Kids are Alright and Hand to God. That definitely did not receive just routine cast listings - I have added quotes from reviews, which said his performance was virtuosic, remarkable, extraordinary, it was "young Foote’s show" - a notable performance in a notable play. I will check the other actors nominated and vote on them separately - it's not possible to assess different people just on the basis that their articles were created by the same editor (and Foote is not a child actor; I don't know about the others yet.)RebeccaGreen (talk) 08:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepCaleb Foote per User:RebeccaGreen.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural Comment I have added some sources to David Alan Smith (actor). How the nom Etzedek24 can justify bundling all these actors together, just because they were created by the same editor who used unreliable sources, I don't know. The only thing that David Alan Smith shares with the other actors included in the AfD is that he appeared on The Kids are Alright. He is most definitely not a child actor, as he was born in 1959 and has a career of over 30 years! Please separate the nominations, so they can each be considered on their own merits. RebeccaGreen (talk) 21:33, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RebeccaGreen: I struck the child actor comment a while back--and see above for comments related to the viability of a procedural close. That these articles are connected by the series and created by the same editor is a fine grounds for bundling. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 21:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I don't know where you struck it, but you say "not simply because they're child actors" at 16:22, 3 July 2019 above. The state of sourcing in an article is not grounds for deleting, unless a thorough WP:BEFORE has been done, which it clearly hasn't in these cases. It's not always clear whether editors are !voting on one or all nominated articles here, so I don't know how a closing editor is going to be able to assess them. RebeccaGreen (talk) 22:09, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did do a BEFORE, and nothing of note turned up except for interviews and cast announcements. The only sourcing that has been added to the articles so far are primary sources. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)}

WP:NACTOR requires "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". The sources added verify the roles these actors have had, and the attention paid to them by reviewers. Reviews are certainly acceptable sources for WP:CREATIVE #3, which requires "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". They are not considered primary sources about actors, authors, etc; they are only primary sources about the reviewers, which are not the subject of these articles. RebeccaGreen (talk) 03:53, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Concur with Rebecca green that bundling is inappropriate for this list of actors. they should be considered separately.
• Comment: The other actors have been unbundled. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 05:06, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! That makes it much more straightforward :-) RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:27, 11 July 2019 (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.