Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Locke (actor)

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:17, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Locke (actor)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

per WP:NACTOR. Bradford (Talk) 02:14, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 08:44, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because his representation not only as an actor but as an activist for LGBTQ+ is notable. And Joe Locke does appear to meet basic notability guidelines due to the relatively extensive coverage he's received from independent sources, and there's a lot of them. It can be reliable and be pondered that he fit's partially in the categories such as WP:NACTOR, and is about to fulfill it. (Luisedavis) — Preceding undated comment added 17:05, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete actor notability guidelines require multiple significant roles in notable productions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:53, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As Joe Locke is starring in a recently released series, he is likely to get additional roles later in his career. Deleting the page now would only require adding it again later. Cyber 94 (talk) 18:37, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify I think there is scope for a potential article here in future, but as the person who initially added a notability tag to his article, I agree that he does not meet NACTOR in the slightest yet. – DarkGlow • 19:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify The article is still actively improved with lots of contributions recently. I agree that it hasn't meet NACTOR yet but it would be a shame to just remove the page while it can still be worked on. Thariqziyad (talk) 19:55, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If basic notability guidelines are met by an individual, they do not necessarily need to meet the additional specific criteria laid out in the specific notability categories such as WP:NACTOR as long as the person in question is not part of an exclusion category. Joe Locke does appear to meet basic notability guidelines due to the relatively extensive coverage he's received from independent sources, although it could potentially be argued he could fall under the "single event" exclusion category, it also doesn't appear as though it would be appropriate to list information about his career, which did arguably become notable over Heartstopper under that page instead. - At time same time, it would appear incredibly unlikely that, events that will continue to make this person notable will stop, meaning this page will likely develop more into the future. The alternative to keeping the page here would be draftify the page, in which case we would just basically be making relevant information about Joe Locke that is currently on the page, either unavailable on wikipedia entirely, or accessible in a place where it really isn't obvious or suitable on a basis that is going to be very temporary in nature. I really only see this provide downsides to wikipedia users in this specific instance. In the end, Joe Locke's page appears to be right on the knife's edge between being able to have/not have their own page under wikipedia's guidelines, but I am seeing a clear downside to draftifying or removing the page at this point, thus (perhaps controversially) I am voting to keep the page. Wilburg22 - The insufferable potato! (Click here for my talk page!) 15:33, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is extensive coverage of the subject by reliable sources, which meets WP:BASIC and passes WP:NACTOR. For these reasons, and per points made Wilburg22, this article should remain. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 18:21, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@AuthorAuthor: WP:BASIC states that "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published states" [...] and General notability guideline (WP:N) states that "presumed" means that "significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article" [...] The subject has just made his debut as an actor with this series, I don't think he has enough encyclopedic relevance yet to merit a wiki.

Could it not be redirected to the series page until he achieves true/greater notability? (more roles and important projects for example, awards/nominations etc.) --Miaow 22:50, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This person passes the notability guidelines, thus I don't support deletion. Auror Andrachome (talk) 02:24, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with AuthorAuthor. In addition, notability can be established by this article getting on average 30,000 pageviews each day since it was created. --- FULBERT (talk) 15:22, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, you can save the information in the Sandbox of the user who created the article. But definitely the actor is not remarkable. The article has been created since May 2021. Were you waiting for the series to come out to promote the actor here on Wikipedia? Bradford (Talk) 22:02, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bradford, The issue is not if the actor is remarkable, the issue is he is notable, which he appears to be based on the external evidence in the news, his critical reception in this Netflix role, and the amount of traffic to this article each day. I have no idea about the intentions of the original drafter of the article. FULBERT (talk) 00:11, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FULBERT Please see WP:POPULARPAGE. Actually the article don't say anything about "his critical reception in this Netflix role". --Miaow (talk) 16:31, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I also agree with AuthorAuthor. Although Heartstopper is a new production, the subject’s portrayal of his character has already received much critical acclaim. The nature of the role is of special interest because of the sensitive and topical issues addressed - teenage sexuality, gender identity, bullying etc. The quality of the acting, in itself, accords notability and I’m certain that the article will only grow as this young actor’s experience increases. The number of visits to the page is high which suggests that the content is valued. Public interest and notability go hand in hand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mintcake58 (talk • contribs) 09:33, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete actor notability guidelines require multiple significant roles in notable productions.--Malvoört (talk) 16:00, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria. "People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria". cagliost (talk) 16:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I literally came upon this Wikipedia article after reading about this British person in American news source. He meets WP:Notability. OCNative (talk) 19:46, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very notable person - have seen lots of news sources. Definitely worthy of a wiki BubbleBub (talk) 04:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NBASIC. Subject has very clearly "received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." That the subject does not meet WP:NACTOR is secondary. LinkTiger (talk) 18:39, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per LinkTiger above. Peter Ormond 💬 19:24, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with many points laid out above. TheKaphox T 07:22, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the reasons above. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:43, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He's been having a lot of media coverage and is speaking out about LGBTQIA+ issues. This page will surely be developed soon enough, seeing as it's going now. 185.26.88.44 (talk) 11:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Classic case of WP:NACTOR being overwhelmingly overriden by WP:BASIC due to extensive and across-platform mentions in RSs. Nacaru 21:56, 5 May 2022 (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.