Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randall Brown

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 claims of the "keep" !side are not substantiated by independent reliable sources. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Randall Brown

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Non-notable actor, does not satisfy criteria listed in WP:ENT Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 08:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Autobiography lacking reliable sources, notability not established. JNW (talk) 10:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. Hairhorn (talk) 11:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, subject has performed in many stage shows, appeared in well known television programs, and portrayed the lead in award winning feature films. in addition, has been in front page ny times articles and been featured in international news segments. --Trekkiemnstr (talk) 16:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep,I have seen him on The Coaching Corner.--Carriestula (talk) 17:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Trekkiemnstr is the author and presumably subject of the article; Carriestula also is a WP:SPA. JNW (talk) 17:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I have also seen him on The Coaching Corner. I also followed his references and they all fit true. Acting is his profession, he has credits, I do not understand what makes someone "notable" enough. Keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.205.138.95 (talk • contribs) — 166.205.138.95 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete per WP:BLP and WP:ENT. He's sure popular with his own sockpuppets though! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
they're not my sock puppets and i'm kind of offended by the accusations. obviously you have all made up your mind about the article. sure, randall is not a mega celebrity, but he's known well enough in certain circles. oh well. i have no choice but to surrender to the elitest wikipedia editors, despite the fact that it seems like 98% of people don't even have wikipedia accounts (obviously that is not a verifiable number, but i only know like one person who has ever edited anything on wikipedia). it just seems strange to have criteria that is so subjective and so easily contested by any individual on the site. certainly, there needs to be some sort of filter so that not every person/place/thing in the universe has its own article, but the idea of a democratic encyclopedia should not be overshadowed by a handful of individuals who feel the need to police the internet. anyway, do what you want... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.117.139 (talk) 22:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sorry. forgot to login. i'm sure that's a common problem.--Trekkiemnstr (talk) 22:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We do have those 'filters' you mention, we call them notability criteria. The ones most applicable to this article are WP:BLP and WP:ENT. And as for sockpuppets, yes, two brand new editors showing up within an hour to vote identically on a very obscure subject are pretty much guaranteed to be sockpuppets. Votes of this nature are ignored by the admins when closing the discussion anyway, so cut it out, you're not doing yourself or the article any favours. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's belaboring the obvious, but always bears repeating that although Wikipedia is an open encyclopedia, it is not intended to be used for self-promotion. There are guidelines for notability, which is why this is different from spacebook, myface, (sic) or any blog where you're free to post your resume and life story. JNW (talk) 23:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails notability criteria for actors. He had no major roles and roles in school does not count. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 19:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notable roles. Dante's Criterion is not notable, &, appropriately, does not have a Wikipedia article, and there is no other possible importance. DGG ( talk ) 01:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: pile-on! (Sorry, Trekkie, it's fun and that's what it's like trying to get your man through the hoops.) One NYX interview doth not notability make. Maybe recreate as a disambiguation between Jeff Brown (ice hockey b. 1966) middle-named Randall, and the Randall Brown at flash fiction mentioned in two other WP articles. JJB 07:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

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.