Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aidan Gould

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aidan Gould

edit
Aidan Gould (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Unnotable child actor. One role in an relatively unnotable film does not meet WP:ENTERTAINER, nor does he meet WP:BIO and WP:N. Has no significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Speedy declined by User:WereSpielChequers with note of "decline speedy and replace with notability - starred in a film is an assertion of notability" -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews of his role in the film go in the film article. They don't really provide significant coverage of him as a person, but of a character. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reviews say that the person Aidan Gould did a good job of playing the part in the movie. That pertains to the person's notability. And I see why Jumpguru called Julia non-notable--but the movie is notable enough. Drmies (talk) 00:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In agreement, the reviews all speak of him by name... not his character name... and highly praise his acting... exactly the notability being asserted and sourced. If his acting had not been worth making note, the reviewers would not have included him. Aslo, and with respoects to the nom, if the film Julia was "relatively unnotable" it is unlikely it would have such a terrific article on Wiki. However, and thank you, the reviews would also make a nice addition to the film article. Thank you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Terrific? Please tell me you're being sarcastic if you think that is a "terrific" articles. It has a plot summary, cast list, and one unsourced sentence in the reception section. None of the article is sourced. It is far from being terrific in any sense of the word. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Far better than many currently on Wiki. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not by any realistic standard. Its a typical bad film article: overly long plot summary, no lead, nothing useful. Julia (2008 film) is a stub, nothing more. There is nothing terrific about it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well... now I have something to do. We made that darn book article shine and I hope to have your help on the film article when you get a chance. And we're going to have to figure a good DYK hook. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Being IN film, perhaps my mindset allows me to figure different search parameters. In this case, both you and the nom provided the clues. She wrote the film was "relatively unnotable" and in looking at its wiki article and searching to determine if her statement had any basis, I found the reviews she must have missed. I owe her my thanks. More such exist may in his connection with other projects... as in the film industry, its all connected. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"# Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions" does not say " and was mentioned in a review for a single film. Note the multiple in the criteria. None of the reviews constitute the "significant coverage" required to meet WP:N as well. Brief mention in an overall review of the film isn't significant, its minor and only because of the film. Any notability of the film does not confer to its actors.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You need not, but other editors in looking at the article, now that it has been expanded and sourced as a direct result of your tagging it, will find the multiple international reviews (German ones in depth), and a filmology showing lead roles in multiple films. Not simply "a review" and not simply "one film". Thank you. WP:AGF? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q.
Good gosh, he's only nine. Even Haley Joel Osment was a kid once. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, he is only nine, but that doesn't exempt him from the same guidelines. Right now, he's just a WP:ONEVENT person, which also fails WP:BIO. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One event? A movie, which was discussed in British and German media, and not on the same day, you mean. Besides, if you'd look through those articles, you'd see that the "Skandale und Glanznummern" article actually devotes some attention to him besides just mentioning his acting skills: "Das [gekidnappten Kind] wird von dem heute 11-jährigen Aidan Gould nicht minder unheimlich gekonnt gespielt. Allein, das Talent des kleinen Mimen hat sein Selbstwertgefühl abseits des Sets offenbar ein wenig überstrapaziert. Bei der Berlinale tritt der junge Film-Spross jedenfalls recht altklug in Erscheinung, und auf die Frage, ob die permanente Gegenwart von Pistolen und Gewalt in seiner unmittelbaren Umgebung ihm nicht Angst gemacht habe, weiß er schon ganz abgeklärt zu antworten: 'Man möchte ja auch Angst haben vor der Kamera, wenn man Angst haben soll.'" That's pretty funny, coming from an 11-year old, and especially useful for our purposes is that I have this from a German article. Oh, I'm sure you also saw in those German articles that it was him and the lead actress who were in Germany for the promotion of the movie at the Berlinale--that there were more than a dozen hits in the German media for this kid would perhaps suggest that there is a shred of notability here. One event? A significant series of events, it seems to me. Drmies (talk) 02:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
haaba.com is actually a pan-african news site which mosting publishes news from other media sources, this article was written by the editor, i think it just passes verifiablity. --neon white talk 01:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neonwhite, that's precisely the problem. Editor? What editor? As you know, Berlin is not in Africa. I don't like the smell of it--surely it's not some editor locally at the haaba headquarters. They got it from somewhere, and I can't tell from where. It's OK for blogs to simply repeat information, even if it's incomplete, but it shouldn't be for us. Drmies (talk) 20:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment-Look at what you guys are saying keep to. There are like, no sources for this kid. I found two reliable sources, how can you make an article out of that? This should be deleted. – J U M P G U R U ■ask㋐㋜㋗■ 21:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are eight sources in the article right now. Like, that's plenty to support the statements made in the article, and a good indication that more is to follow. Drmies (talk) 21:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, please take a look. When you first brought the article to the nom's attention on her talk page it was in poor shape certainly, but the sources existed and have been added.. and the article itself expanded. It is not the same article that you found... nor the same one she nominated. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is still in no better shape. If you actually look at and follow the guidelines for a biography, nearly everything "added" would quickly be removed as not belonging there, which would reduce it to only 4 references. And still nothing actually added provided significant coverage, but no one seems to be looking at either of those things. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Opinion. And the informations added do indeed have a place in a BLP for an actor. I will provide examples if you wish. Thank you for WP:AGF. His statement was "There are like, no sources for this kid. I found two reliable sources". In response it was shown that more than 2 were available and have been added. Further, there are even more but kinda seems like overkill. Oh... we didn't use the myspace link JumpGuru found in his search (it was for a different Aidan Gould). Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Collectonian, I did provide English translations of the German press praising Gould's performance. How are those things not "belonging there"? Are you saying that in biographies one cannot have references that say something about the person? That strikes me as odd. As for "no one seems to be looking at either of those things," I think you should assume good faith in all the editors on this page who have voted keep--you have to consider that it IS possible that they considered lots of things and simply disagree with you. Surely that's possible, no? Drmies (talk) 20:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Because biographies are not for reception sections of their various films, but summaries of the person's life, career, etc. And I am assuming good faith, (well except for one below which is obviously not assuming good faith towards me), however I also know that at least a few of the editors voting keep have little experience in editing and crafting GOOD biographies, which would not include that sort of information at all. While I'm not fond of editing biographies, particularly of living people, I am experienced in the overall concept of what does and does not go in one. As such, what's been added does not actually add any value to the article, nor does it really speak to his notability, only to the film's. If you look at any FA biography articles from the last year or so, you will see this is so. Further, some keeps seem to be basing their votes on his "future" potential, which goes against WP:CRYSTAL. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Drmies. I hope when the nominator tags for deletion to an article, do some research, plz.--Caspian blue 22:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Meets WP:Creative. This young actor is notable has had significant roles in notable films including Julia (2008), The Red Balloon (2006), The Secret Life of Leonardo Da Vinci (2006), and The McPassion (2006). Untick (talk) 04:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sources for this article are reliable and verifiable. There may be a conflict of interest for Jumpguru as he has been involved in a real life conflict with the subject of this wikipedia article.Journeey (talk) 21:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)Journeey — Journeey (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Please provide some evidence of this? I'd love to know how this occurred. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see how his being an editor for Jump magazines or his authoring of Jump's manga articles off-wiki could act in conflict here. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? -_O The only thing I can think of a conflict over, would be over the spelling over my name. – J U M P G U R U ■ask㋐㋜㋗■ 02:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, Schmidt, there is no conflict over Jump Guru being an editor for Jump magazines or manga articles. The conflict of interest, which, under Wikipedia's own rules, Jump Guru should have disclosed when he started this deletion process, is that Jump Guru personally knows Aidan, they are 12 year old classmates who are having a schoolyard tiff that has nothing whatsoever to do with the validity of Aidan's Wikipedia article. Thanks to Jump Guru initiating this deletion process, the tiff is being played out on this discussion page, which is an inappropriate forum for a schoolyard argument. Once again, the sources in Aidan Gould's article are reliable and verifiable. That is what is important here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.58.165.252 (talk) 03:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And your evidence is? You are slandering an established editor and borderline violating Wikipedia policies regarding "outing" editors. He also didn't "start" this deletion process, which negates your who spurious claim (also fairly sure Jump is in his 20s) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps our anonymous IP thinks that by JumpGuru first bringing Aidan Gould to your attention[1] the process was begun. And naturally, Jump Guru's age is of no consequence, for wiki has many young editors. His age would then be the only "outing", and of no importance, as JG has already declared on his userpage[2] his involvement with Jump magazine and manga. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 17:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, yes it would be of importance. One does not go around identifying minors if the minor himself has not said he is one (which of course JumpGuru is not, but general case here). One also does not go around making statements implying they are trying to identify the real-life persona of a Wiki editor if they have not chosen to do so. Big huge bruhahas over that quite recently. Also, I think you may be misreading his page - he isn't involved in Jump magazine as an editor IRL, he edits the Jump related articles and manga articles in general :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. My bad. Editing wiki articles rather than editing the magazines. Understood. I still think his age does not discredit his bringing the article's earlier version to your attention... whether 12 or 20... matters not to wiki, except in that calling an adult a child is incivil. If true, I would not wish evidences to then be made public (outing). If false, it can be ignored. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am an adult. That Journeey guy was probobly trying to insult me for being related to the deletion of the article. – J U M P G U R U ■ask㋐㋜㋗■ 22:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about! XD I'm over 20 years old! – J U M P G U R U ■ask㋐㋜㋗■ 03:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12 or 20... age does not matter to wiki. Its the encyclopedia anyone can edit. And even if you were a 12-year-old who had a schoolyard conflict with the subject, the article about him would still be subject to review for sources eventually anyway, and the subsequently added sources provide what is required. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 17:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ROFLOL Are you trying to tell me that you actually believe that! XD – J U M P G U R U ■ask㋐㋜㋗■ 17:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse myself, but this is a joke! I did not have a schoolyard conflict. I'm 22! – J U M P G U R U ■ask㋐㋜㋗■ 17:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you understand what Michael is trying to say--"even if..." is hypothetical. Drmies (talk) 17:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, only a hypothetical. Age matters not to wiki unless you were actually a minor child and something were done to bring your name and location to the fore. Since the allegation is made by a SPA, a closing admin will likely disregard it and look to the article itself. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:49, 23 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Aidan_Gould&oldid=1069713467"
  NODES
admin 1
INTERN 1
Note 22
Project 2