Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnny Terris (2nd nomination)

Add links
Page semi-protected
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 delete. The keep !votes as a group failed to advance policy-based argument that notability exists in this case. Certainly the subject is successful in his field, but for a stand alone article to withstand challenge on notability grounds there must be multiple reliable sources independent of the subject that establish the subject's claim. Here, across two separate AFD's, suitable sourcing was not found. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 23:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Terris

AfDs for this article:
Johnny Terris (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)

One moderately significant role is not sufficient for notability DGG ( talk ) 19:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • The guy has been doing films since 1987, was a pinnacle artist in the underground scene and has an imdb full of 21 films in the last 2 decades. The page was here for YEARS before it was trashed and deleted due to vandalism and lies. I was told that once I had more than one source the page would go back. There are THREE sources there, it was approved and now you want to delete it again? What is your problem with this guy? Leave the page alone. It's not going to kill wikipedia.
Why are you trying to delete this page again? It's been approved and sources have been in place. This page has been in a constant fight for it to be back on since it was deleted via vandalism and lying attacks from people off tumblr. Leave the damn page alone. What is the problem here?? How do I go higher up to keep this page here? Who do I have to contact? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.238.169.74 (talk) 20:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DGG...SPEAK. Explain this. Why are you power-tripping and purposely doing this?
I have never had more of a problem than trying to get this page back online. A page that has been here for years without a problem until someone lied and vandalized it and had it removed. I was told that once i had more than one source, the page would be back up again. There are three sources there now and more to come as the page gets edited more. I don't know why DDG is trying to have it removed yet again and having it up for deletion for the 2nd damn time. This is ridiculous and obviously an attack for whatever reason on this page. A serious question here...is there a way to go higher up than this, because i will go to it and message whoever I have to. I will not stop until this page is back up in it's rightful place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.238.169.74 (talk) 20:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please calm down. Wikipedia is run by volunteers, and is built on consensus. Naturally that leads to differences of opinions. Accusing folks of "power-tripping" is wrong on several counts. First, it undermines one of the pillars of Wikipedia: assume good faith. DGG isn't power tripping, he's interpreting the rules as he sees them. Period. Second, if you make accusations (e.g. tumblr, etc.) please back them up with links to show that they are accurate. Third, as a site built on consensus, being combative is probably not a good idea. Onel5969 TT me 02:58, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One thing you're going to have to keep in mind is that having a Wikipedia article is not an entitlement. Lots of people exist without getting to have Wikipedia articles to document their existence — and you haven't made any credible case for why your determination to get him back into Wikipedia is justified, such as supporting it with enough reliable source coverage to satisfy WP:GNG or making a credible claim that he passes WP:NACTOR (which does not grant an automatic notability freebie to every actor who exists). Bearcat (talk) 19:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having said all that above, as a matter of disclosure, I'm the editor that approved this article through the AfC process. And I think this could be a key test of the integration of the AfC and AfD processes (both of which I'm involved in, although only recently in the AfD). After this article was deleted through AfD, it was resubmitted through the AfC process in July of this year. It was declined twice by two different editors, both times with comments on the direction any editor should make in order to get it moved to the mainspace. This ip editor followed those instructions (and any of you who are involved in AfC knows how difficult that can be to make happen). After the second time it was declined, (having added an in-depth article about the subject), the ip editor was asked to provide at least one other in-depth reference from an independent RS. The ip editor added this reference, which is in-depth and definitely RS. I would actually like to see this AfD withdrawn, since the ip editor did exactly what was asked of him at AfC. Currently, the article has two in-depth pieces of the subject. add to that the other citations and I think they meet WP:BASIC (albeit by the skin of their teeth). Anyway, those are my thougts. My vote, obviously would be to Keep. Onel5969 TT me 02:58, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for not knowing wikipedia well, as i"m new here. And also for being aggressive. Like I said this has gotten extremely frustrating and getting this page back to what it was is like pulling teeth. It's one thing after another and after the last deletion due to the lies and attacks on the page by a group of kids, it seems like everyone is against putting it back in for keep. It's infuriating. Especially when it was here for so many years without an issue. More information and sources will be added in time. It would be nice to have the page here free of banners and pointless drama so that we could do that. But there is more than one source here and I was told that all i needed was more than one and everything would be cool, and according to Wikipedia rules, that is all that is needed right now. And thank you Onel5969 for coming to the defense and saying 'keep'. Hopefully it will be left alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.218.68.240 (talk) 05:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and draft/userfy if needed - I've been seeing Onel15969 around and we seem to be on the same page but with this one, we're not because although the article is sourced, there's nothing else aside from that and given that IMDb shows little and he has now stopped acting and such, there's probably not much. My searches found nothing good and convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:37, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The imdb doesn't show 'little'. It has a message board with people discussing his work as well as lots of photos and 21 consistent titles since the 1980's, including new ones. He has not stopped acting. He has a film coming out at a film festival in 2015 and one in 2016 and just finished a television series as a prominent lead character. I don't understand where you're getting that his imdb is "little" or that he 'stopped acting'. There are tons of articles on wikipedia nobody touches that are a lot less sourced and much less credible than this one. This one, for some reason, people are specifically attacking and wanting gone and it's ridiculous. And what is with the power tripping on wikipedia? I dont understand it at all. I don't mean to be rude here but in all honesty, who are you people to judge whether or not someone is credible enough to be here? What exactly are your credentials for that other than being able to edit a board? I cannot believe this is STILL going on wit this page. It's ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.238.169.10 (talk • contribs)

IMDb is not a reliable source for Wikipedia content. It's a user-generated site which can contain uncaught errors, and grants profiles to absolutely anybody who's ever been involved in the film or television industry at all, right down to best boys and hairdressers — and as we learned in another AFD recently, a person can claim roles that are actually verifiably false, and still get to keep the IMDb page just because those false roles were claimed. We require reliable source coverage in media, not the existence of an IMDb profile. Bearcat (talk) 19:36, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am actually J Terris and I don't care if I'm on here or not. It's a silly website on the Internet not a cure for ALS. Relax, is the internet really this childish? How old are you people? Stop arguing about it. You guys sound like you are all high school kids fighting over who gets to go to the party thrown by the cool kids. None of this really matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.218.68.240 (talk) 14:12, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're posting from the same IP as the earlier person here who's defending the article, so, uh. I don't know what that means but in any case you're really not helping. This page is for discussing whether the article should be kept or deleted, not for "I don't care about Wikipedia" comments. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 14:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC) Considering that you're likely the same person who's defending the article then it kinda seems like you're saying "don't argue for deletion because that's silly" which is not a valid argument in AfDs. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 14:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have three roommates I share a computer with. One has their own laptop. Two of them share this one that I never use because I use my smartphone for literally everything. If you must know, I'm sitting here eating breakfast in BC reading this nonsense and decided to post myself. I have only commented once ever on wikipedia once in my entire life for the same thing (telling people I don't care if I'm here or not) a few years ago. A friend put up the article on me in the first place many years ago and my roommate had been updating it. I laugh at him over it because I don't care. He seems to get a kick out of it. I don't have to explain myself to editors on a ridiculous not exactly factual website. Wikipedia has been proven to be a bit of a joke (that is very apparent from this thread). I'd much rather be on more legitimate sourced sites on the World Wide Web than this one. My point here is quite simple. I don't care if I'm on here on not. I don't know what kind of world you're living in, but as the actual person who the article is about I think I have a right to my say, so take your 'not a valid argument' editorial nerd bullshit and shove it up your ass. Delete the fucking article already. I don't care. I'm really not that important. This whole thread is childish as hell and all this pointless garbage floats to the top of Internet searches when someone is seriously looking me up on the Internet for information about my work. End it. Go find another Wiki article to rag on in the attempts to make yourselves feel more important than you actually are in reality. MOVE ON. Put it up or don't put it up. Stop bickering about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.218.68.240 (talk • contribs)

The only one that's "bickering" here is your anonymous fanboy, whoever it is. Please take it up with them, it should be easy to do when you live in the same house. As for the rest of us, we're just following the usual procedures here on Wikipedia. Deletion discussions last for 7 days, typically, the result is decided after that. And the decision is based on policy (Wikipedia:Notability (people)) and reliable sources. For relatively unknown people, it's possible for the person himself to say that he'd prefer the article was deleted and we would take that into account, but given all the trolling around this topic we can't just take your word for it that you are who you claim to be. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 16:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not a valid argument. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 16:14, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He has been here for years without an issue. The type of films Terris has done were never meant for mainstream audiences so naturally there wouldn't be too much on the Internet about them like they would be for more mainstream artists. That doesn't take away the fact that they were done and they exist. He done a lot of them pre-Internet, so perhaps a lot of articles and information are in actual print vs online. The television series he is on has been multi nominated by the two top prestigious awards for the arts in Canada. His character isn't just a simple guest spot, he plays one of the top three leading character on that series including being showcased in the main title credits. From what I see on the page, there are three credible sources which is more than enough; a lot more than some other Wikipedia articles that area approved without issue. There seems to be a lot of dramatic emotions surrounding this article and from reading around and viewing past history, he does seem to be attacked here on a regular basis. Wikipedia is supposed to be a website that you build up, not tear down. Keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.57.0.202 (talk) 12:40, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that films exist doesn't get a person into Wikipedia itself, and neither does the fact of having a page on IMDb (every person who works in film at all, right down to "third assistant best boy's hairdresser", gets an IMDb page, so inclusion on there does not automatically grant an inclusion freebie on here.) Bearcat (talk) 19:13, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I'm still not seeing in this version of the article is any substantive claim of notability that would satisfy Wikipedia's inclusion rules for any of his activities — as written, this just confirms that he exists, and provides no indication of why an encyclopedia should concern itself with the fact that he exists. I'm also seeing a troubling and inappropriate attitude of entitlement among many of the participants in this discussion — a belief that he has a right to be covered on here, so inalienable that any attempt to actually apply Wikipedia's content and sourcing standards is automatically "attacking" him and denying him his "rightful place" — which doesn't incline me to give him the benefit of the doubt. Wikipedia is not a public relations venue for people to promote themselves and their work — we're an encyclopedia. The article does not make any claim substantive enough to satisfy our inclusion rules for actors or film directors or models or writers, and it does not cite enough sources to satisfy WP:GNG instead of one of the subject-specific inclusion tests. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:32, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Are you kidding Bearcat (talk)? There is a huge difference between "third assistant best boy's hairdresser" and someone who has 21 acting credits, 18 director credits, 15 editor credits, 13 writer credits and 10 cinematographer credits within the span of 28 years, and it's very ignorant to loop them into the same categories. And I dont think anyone is promoting themselves. From the looks above, Terris himself even said to delete the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.63.146.172 (talk) 20:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A person can have 10 million credits on their IMDb page, and that still doesn't count for squat — it takes reliable sourcing, not "has a page on IMDb", to get a person into Wikipedia. Bearcat (talk) 20:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat (talk) my point was that you were being disrespectful and rude comparing someone of that caliber to a "third assistant's best boys hairdresser", not whether or not imdb is a "reliable source". And for the record, getting on the imdb is not as easy as you think it is. A "third assistants best boys hairdresser" is there because he's part of a general crew. Directors, actors, editors, writer etc, need sources for anything to be added. Obviously Terris has enough of them to be included there but wikipedia has gone so far down hill in the last couple of years with overly self-aggrandizing editors who have no credibility themselves to judge what is 'realible' and what isn't, that this whole infantile discussion doesn't surprise me a bit. Wikipedia isn't even considered a scholarly source in colleges and universities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.63.146.172 (talk) 20:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no, people don't need "sources" to get added to IMDb. This actually came up in an AFD discussion just over a month ago — a person had an IMDb profile, but it was verifiably lying about acting credits that the person verifiably didn't actually have. The person actually didn't work in the film industry at all, but was merely forum shopping for every website under the sun where he could finagle himself a public relations platform for self-promotional purposes — so a Wikipedia editor contacted them about the profile, and was told that it didn't matter: as long as the person claimed credits, they did not actually have to be true for the profile to be kept. IMDBPro might have higher standards than that, certainly, but the non-pro part does not. Bearcat (talk) 21:32, 16 August 2015 (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/Johnny_Terris_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1077964934"