Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blackie Dammett (2nd nomination)

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 redirect to Anthony Kiedis#Early life. JGHowes ^talk 22:58, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blackie Dammett

[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)

Non-notable actor who's claim to fame seems to be as the father of Anthony Kiedis. Previously deleted in 2017. A Google search brings up nothing that would suggest he has obtained notability since the last AfD. John B123 (talk) 20:20, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 20:20, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 20:20, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Dammett had a major roll in five films which are listed in the Filmography chapter of the article. Dammett is listed in the IMDb database: [1]. Notable enough, me thinks. Kind regards, Saschaporsche (talk) 20:29, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Drug Dealer #3" in Lethal Weapon and a bartender in The Boys Next Door are hardly major roles. --John B123 (talk) 20:38, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Anthony Kiedis#Early life, which is where it was originally redirected, and then protect from recreation. Clearly does not meet GNG or NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:42, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Anthony Kiedis#Early life, per Onel5969. Chirota (talk) 00:47, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and salt: Fails WP:NACTOR (notability as an actor). Furthermore, nothing notable happened since the first redirect until his death, which is no reason to recreate the page. Wylie pedia @ 04:15, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The standard is subjective, and a hyper-strict interpretation of this standard conflicts with how notability is actually employed in practice. There are dozens, if not hundreds of actors whose "notability " is similar, whose careers are of similar duration, and are credited with similar appearances throughout film and television who have their own pages on Wiki. I will not cite even one here for fear someone will endeavor to erase them. IMDB credits Blackie with 36 appearances over a 14 year period (1977-1990). On the episode of Magnum PI he was the primary villain, more than just a backdrop character. Furthermore, what is the benefit of forcing a reader who wants to research Blackie to leave Wikipedia? Isn't the point of this whole enterprise to garner views, trust, and keep Wiki a go-to place for information? Keep Blackie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.144.181.165 (talk) 15:23, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just pointing out that most reasons to "keep" above are discouraged at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions: "he's got an IMDb", "other bios of lesser notables have articles", "it helps build the web". Wylie pedia @ 20:00, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Out of respect for all of you who make Wiki work, I did take time to read through the whole "arguments to avoid section" prior to posting, and carefully considered my statments against the examples provided. As you state, it seems I am invoking the "What about article x?" failure in my post, but if you read more closely I am not employing that logic. I am questioning the interpretation and application of "notability" that appears to be motivating this nomination to delete.

Whether Blackie "has had significant roles in multiple notable films and television shows" is the matter up for debate I think. The IMDB reference isn't a violation of the arguments, it clearly demonstrates he has a body of work which is debatably venerable and meets the Wiki standard. The "Just notable/Just not notable" section discourages "Delete as non-notable", yet other than the negative "Google test" posted by the nominator, that is essentially the only reason provided for this nomination. I attempted to demonstrate otherwise.

The precedent exists. The readers and contributors have spoken with the sheer volume of entertainer articles whose significance is on par with Blackie Dammett. That collective basis is the convention that exists, for better or worse, and IS THE standard that defines "significance" as used in the notability guidelines. I feel Blackie meets that standard and deserves his own page, not just because "There's an article on x, and this is just as famous as that..."

With gratitude for all your efforts, I humbly submit my rationale for keeping Blackie's page and wish you all good health. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.144.181.165 (talk) 22:52, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to me another rehash of "What about article x?". To clarify the reasons for the nomination, for which your speculations are way off: The subject was determined to be non-notable by the community in 2017, and as such shouldn't be recreated unless something significant has happened since then to show notability. A Google WP:BEFORE search doesn't show anything to change the previous AfD outcome. The precedent here is in fact articles shouldn't be recreated once deleted at AfD unless circumstances have changed. This is not the case here. The question here is not whether Blackie is notable from his film career, it was previously agreed he wasn't, but has anything significant happened since the last AfD that now changes notability. To keep recreating articles because you disagree with the previous AfD is not the way it works. --John B123 (talk) 07:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep —¿philoserf? (talk) 05:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Anthony Kiedis. Not notable enough for a page. Popcornfud (talk) 11:04, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the newspaper and other print coverage of his acting work. Granted, the articles to be found in these searches are mainly about films that starred him, but the fact that he was discussed for being a primary or supporting role in these movies at all by reputable sources indicates his notability. If the filmography section stating he had "bigger" roles in some notable films is true, he is a notable actor for that plus the coverage I provided. Remember, he had Hollywood roles mostly within a past decade, so obviously we're not going to find much coverage of time after that besides the usual Variety obituaries whenever anyone from Hollywood dies. I'm not stating Strong Keep just yet because, like I said, the coverage is mainly about films he was in. 👨x🐱 (talk) 19:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Also found a few articles from NYTimes and LATimes discussing him as starring in notable films, such as the National Lampoon, Burning Secret, and Running on Empty. 👨x🐱 (talk) 22:25, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't see any of these articles "discussing him", just a passing mention. --John B123 (talk) 23:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - You didn't look at the sources enough. This newspaper article criticizes his accent in a main role of a movie he was in. This Daily News article also spotlights (albeit negatively) his performance. Many of the results bring him up as having a main role in the National Lampoon movie, such as [2] and [3]. 👨x🐱 (talk) 02:01, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Like I said, they are articles about films he was in, not necessarily mainly about him, so I understand the skepticism. However, it does show he is notable for more than just being a father of a member of a famous rock band. At least somewhat. 👨x🐱 (talk) 02:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have added references to this article and I think they're valid. - EclecticEnnui (talk) 05:52, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. The sources only validate he existed; if you take out the parts that can be represented in Anthony Kiedis#Early life, or is BLP-violating gossip, there's hardly anything left. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:13, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:10, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect appears to be the elegant course. If notability is not inherited, neither is it conferred by parenthood. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:01, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect As per Ritchie333. MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:13, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Shouldn't an admin be able to see the previous deleted page and compare this version to see if it is similar enough to be deleted under CSD G4? If it is the same then it should be deleted for that reason, but if it is not the same, then bringing up the previous AfD is not really a valid reason for deletion (there's always the possibility that it was non-notable at that time but is notable now). ✌️ The owner of all 🗸 18:29, 31 May 2021 (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.