Stephen Hogan – No consensus, but relisted. Opinions are about evenly split between endorse and relist. I'm discounting the opinion of the appellant, Supermann, because their 24(!) contributions to this DRV have been disruptive. Responding to any and all views one disagrees with needlessly extends and complicates a discussion, see WP:BLUDGEON. Because of the walls of text, any good arguments on either side are not easily discerned and I'll have to do with the headcount. Given that we have no consensus here, I as DRV closer can choose to relist the AfD. I'm doing so because the discussion was relatively short and not previously relisted. It is therefore possible that a relisting might result in a clearer consensus. Sandstein 10:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
I do believe he is notable enough per Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Entertainers, if not borderline notable per one editor who had shown me the light throughout the editing process. Thanks. Supermann (talk) 03:45, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I believe I am the "one editor" Supermann was referring to, as I had a hand in editing the article as well. I'm unsurprised the AfD happened or the outcome of it. In my opinion, Hogan has some minor notability as an audiobook narrator (there was a Times article on Irish audiobook narrators that dedicated several paragraphs to him), but at best would be a case of WP:TOOSOON. The AfD discussion failed to mention that the article was rejected at AfC due to the creator repeatedly submitting the draft without sufficiently addressing concerns and repeatedly putting forward the reviews mentioned in the AfD rational as the "three best sources", a decision I agreed with at the time (the creator later moved it to the mainspace after being told it was allowed). I also have reservations on the Dublin Live article, because while Hogan had a large role in the article, he is not the focus of the article CiphriusKane (talk) 05:19, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you are one of the two editors, though I still respectfully disagree you applied "too soon" for him, when we can easily verify his many memorable roles/on-screen credits after 20 years, as long as we are willing. Have you finished The Tudors where his head as that of Henry Norris (courtier) got chopped off? The Dublin article was more about Sardar Udham, but we also got to learn about his world view as an Irish. I wouldn't have known about Jallianwala Bagh massacre, had it not been the movie. And I do agree his role in that film is much less than those of Starship Troopers 3: Marauder and Kingdom of Dust: Beheading of Adam Smith. Had his role performed enhanced interrogation techniques on Udham Singh during the investigation or he played the role of the villain massacring the Indians, then I agree it would have been a more significant role. Needless to say, I appreciate your criticism. Supermann (talk) 16:44, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I rarely watch TV and films these days, and I said WP:TOOSOON on the basis that there was potential that Hogan would have a more notable role in the future. That is all I am going to say on the topic CiphriusKane (talk) 04:39, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An article such as this is gonna be deleted by people like you who rarely watch TV and films and who doesn't like the "no firm rules". Fabulous. Thanks and I appreciate your criticism. Basically, it comes down to a bunch of non-film expert experts who have never seen his work preventing people's access to knowledge. And I fundamentally disagree with this. And I apologize 100 times. Maybe Wikipedia is indeed not the right place for this content. It's a burden on Wikipedia to host this content. It hurts the brand. Supermann (talk) 16:54, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (as closer): DRV is not for re-litigating a process which disappoints. User:Supermann seems determined to put this subject into mainspace despite being told several times during AFC that the article lacks sufficient reliable sources to meet general notability requirements. In the AFD, User:Drmies and User:TheBirdsShedTears appear to agree with nominator User:DGG subject fails WP:NACTOR and GNG. In the discussion, only Supermann holds for inclusion. Some socking during the process did not affect the outcome. The RS Times article mentioned by User:CiphriusKane is a series of interviews with various actors who've been performing audiobook readings during the pandemic. I personally did a BEFORE to verify applied sources and look for new ones. I believe an article for the subject could be created (and I would not object if the the article was successfully passed at AFC), but would need substantially better anchoring sources, which I could not find but might still be produced. The subject seems a fine working actor with credits in films, TV, theater and now audiobook narrator (the field where I think it's most likely to find RS). It gave me no pleasure to delete the page, but felt unable to support keep myself (or I would have contributed to the discussion). BusterD (talk) 10:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for tagging me, BusterD, and for properly deleting the article. If an AfD goes 2 to 1 (3 to 1 including the nominator), one can have doubts, relist, etc. or even close as "keep" or "no consensus", based on the arguments put forward. The problem is that Supermann's argument (and I'm skipping over their weird opening sentences) basically boils down to "he was in movies and he's notable". Yes, there was a sock (a funny one), but that doesn't affect the outcome. The AfD was decided properly. Drmies (talk) 14:59, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My argument was funny because I have only seen some of his movies and TV shows, but not ALL, and certainly not any of his audiobooks and theaters works and game voiceover. If it was up to me, I would have stopped the editing at just those two former genres, but then editors kept wanting more. In turn, it's the theaters works and maybe audiobooks that have convinced notability, though I still prefer movies and TV shows, because they are at our fingertips. I didn't make my argument lengthy at the time, because I presumed people would have read all the argument on the talk page or my talk page by now, but maybe they didn't. And I am sorry that my experience is still junior to everyone here that I simply can't write to convince otherwise. Supermann (talk) 16:32, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CommentSupermann, I think you should read guide to declaring conflict of interest for future references than showing interest in a non-notable subject. The subject in question is a non-notable actor and is currently not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. If you still think it passes notability guidelines, you may create a draft and submit it for AfC review. However, if you recreate this in mainspace by yourself, it is likely to be speedy deleted under WP:G4. Dublin Live article popped up a day after the subject was taken to AfD, therefore, it is not considered as an independent and reliable source. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 15:18, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But before you create a draft, please make sure you post all discussions, including AfD as well as this one on draft's talk page. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 15:21, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I read that COI guideline and there is simply none whatsoever. I am just a tax accountant based in NYC. The article was cut down to bare minimum without any fluff by page reviewers after lengthy discussions. You are saying he made a mistake. I can't remember who that reviewer is. Hogan has 2 significant roles based on his lines in the movies Starship Troopers 3: Marauder and Kingdom of Dust: Beheading of Adam Smith that any of us can see with our own eyes, if we are willing to do so. I bet you still haven't seen any of them. And 3 other significant roles in theaters that I guess none of us could witness but have to rely on media reports. The Dublin article popped up because there have been keen interests in the importance of the movie Sardar Udham that ultimately failed India's internal nomination for the 94th Oscars. All of these movies are important subjects in human's history. There is no way that Dublin article was coordinated with me. Have you even seen that movie that is about the aftermath from Jallianwala Bagh massacre? People constantly talk about Wikipedia:Assume good faith, but you have afforded me with nothing but extreme level of skepticism, while those sock puppets User:Nyxaros2 kept vandalizing everywhere under your nose. I understand you are not admin, but I think it's time you refocus where the enforcement should truly lie and let readers have access to the knowledge which is why I joined Wikipedia and decided to give back. I have never deleted any article, because knowledge is power. I just don't appreciate how a simple article of his can bring down the entire quality of Wikipedia? I am not saying he is as notable as Liam Neeson, Colin Farrell, Pierce Brosnan, but come on, after such a lengthy filmography. I respectfully just disagree with your observation. And I apologize in advance if you find me disrespectful. I am sorry. Supermann (talk) 16:22, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see your comments on AfD and here too. Please read WP:CIV, one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. Here on Wikipedia, we do not determine notability by watching a film, but we look into reliable sources. Sockpuppetry has nothing to do with notability as well as AfD outcome. I suggest to maintain civility and assume good faith while commenting on a specific topic. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 16:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, notability is demonstrated by reliable sources (independent of the subject). Presenting opinions and personal views do not override notability guidelines. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 16:35, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But you are overriding them with your own read on the guidelines which is not the way I read it: Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; or Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. Maybe I have reading comprehension issues, since English is not my first language, yet I am still contributing. And one of the five pillars also says, "Wikipedia has no firm rules." How do we reconcile with that? Thanks. Supermann (talk) 16:49, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You may keep presenting your opinions. This subject fails WP:NACTOR and may take some time to meet our notability guidelines. The present sources are insufficient to fulfill notability criteria. Also, Dublin article seems insufficient for satisfying verifiability as well as notability. Regards TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 18:06, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Supermann posted this message to the WP:NPEOPLE talk page. I believe this is a violation of WP:CANVASS as it's clearly trying to push a POV (that we're massively misinterpreting the notability requirements here, a common theme regarding their behaviour towards the article) CiphriusKane (talk) 04:39, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The canvassing article says, "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." (personal attacks removed.) Even nominating Kingdom of Dust: Beheading of Adam Smith for deletion too? History will remember this. Thanks. Supermann (talk) 13:32, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"If I think someone is misreading the Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Entertainers, what can I do?" The canvassing article also labels the following as inappropriate: "Campaigning: Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner." The section title is clearly loaded due to non-neutral language. As for the deletion nomination, that should be addressed on the AfD page. Also, please rescind your accusations of bad faith and persecution. It's getting quite tiresome seeing these cries whenever somebody disagrees with you CiphriusKane (talk) 14:54, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have revised it and am sorry that it was not neutral enough for you. I apologize. Supermann (talk) 16:44, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete was a reasonable close of the AfD, relisting would also have been reasonable and I suppose we could do that here. WP:ENTERTAINER isn't a guarantee that the subject is notable, even if the subject does meet it. It's an indication that the subject is likely to be notable, and subjects are still expected to meet WP:GNG. The deleted article cited a very large number of references (63 footnotes), however almost all of them merely confirm that he appeared in some role and aren't significant coverage. The only two I can see which might be exceptions are [1] and [2]. The former is essentially an interview with the subject about a film he starred in and the latter has a couple of paragraphs about his audio work. I don't think it's out of line for people to conclude that these don't meet the GNG. Hut 8.5 11:19, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - No error by the closer, and no error claimed in the appeal. The appellant doesn't like the consensus. This isn't a rehash. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:41, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:*Endorse:(Following deep analysis of various points will call for a relist): Per Robert McClenon. Better focus on key sources rather than bludgeoning at the AfD might have earned a relist, but a sanity check scan of Redwater reviews do not show sufficient for Notability; TOOSOON always possible. Came here as noticed DRV nom. requesting an undelete. Could be temp-undeleted here but result will inevitably be endorse or a determination DRVpurpose not sated. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:23, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will be calling for a relist ... see my revised comments/!vote below. Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The undelete request is to get back the article. As simple as that. As I said over there, I am gonna lose here, because there are too many fundamentalists here ignoring the "no firm rules." I haven't seen Redwater, so I will stop commenting on that. It's my principle that I don't comment on an actor/film/TV that I haven't watched. Thanks. Supermann (talk) 20:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Temp-undeleted both page and talkpage during this process as reasonably suggested above by User:Djm-leighpark. On my talk, User:Supermann has requested permission to userfy/utilize the work to date, perhaps to draftify or otherwise continue to improve the page. The editor's commitment, energy, and industry is to be commended. I have a few issues with recreation, encouraging that editor not to take advantage of the situation: 1) this new editor has not edited widely outside of this subject area, raising the issue of possible connection especially given the editor's stridency on this and surrounding subjects--if there is any connection of any kind, this must be disclosed per policy, 2) before resubmitting must make a good faith effort to impress AFC reviewers with at least three directly detailing independent sources--not interviews--which meet the reviewer's standard for RS 3) if correctly restored to pagespace, we would merge histories, if that bridge is ever crossed. The user should not rush this; if sources are not found, they should wait until they can be presented. BusterD (talk) 20:23, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate it. I understand the guidance. My passion is films and TV shows. My other major creation since joining in 2006 is Film censorship in China, but as the criticism I received over there, I have not added many 2021 films to the list. The passion on Hogan is mainly driven I have seen some of his works, but apparently not all. The starting point is Starship Troopers 3: Marauders. This song of his at It's a good day to die - starship trooper 3 - YouTube is so damned good. I encourage everyone here who has refused to give any of his performances a chance to at least spend 1 minute on that one. But of course, if they can even see the movie, that would be the best. Call that a shameless promotion. Thanks. Supermann (talk) 20:46, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the meantime, once the article with prose can't be created, I am just curious if the subject can have a similar treatment like Liam Neeson filmography, i.e. only a list article, as seen in my List of US arms sales to Taiwan? Thanks. Supermann (talk) 21:33, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No. Liam Neeson is considered notable enough for inclusion, so sub-articles about the subject can be produced, given the sourcing. This is not to be considered a reprieve, instead a larger responsibility. User:Supermann, I strongly suggest you stop discussing editors overmuch and bludgeoning discussions. Defending one's writing is proper; a wikipedian would not write an article without purpose. Best to defend one's work with sourcing, not undue argument. Please signal your willingness to improve in these areas by asking to withdraw this now unnecessary process. BusterD (talk) 21:41, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I comply with the three RS request, if on this page I could upload the RS articles for everyone to see. Many are either behind a paywall or no longer available online easily. Still retrievable via Factiva though. Otherwise, let's have the due process run out instead of thinking it's unnecessary, because nobody else has given Wikipedia:Ignore all rules any thought. And all of my rage is from this aspect. I again apologize to anyone I offend, esp those who have few edits under their belt, but likes deleting stuff from Wikipedia for others to see. Supermann (talk) 23:39, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can speak for everyone above in saying Ignore All Rules has been well-considered by all the editors in this process, but doesn't mean what you apparently think it means. It does not mean ignore pillars, policies, and guidelines without consequences. It does not mean ignore consensus amongst wikipedians in formal processes. It doesn't mean "keep ignoring the rules" even when acting out-of-process and in opposition to the community. It does not mean total anarchy. Ignore all rules is rarely a winning argument, but intends to give any individual editor a license to try something daring and thoughtful without fear of being castigated for the mere attempt. In this case, you have acted badly and have chosen to agree to reasonable conditions in front of the community, and choosing to honor those agreements you've made will stand you in good stead. Your willingness to engage on these subjects and admit poor judgement has been an important factor in our willingness to extend this opportunity. Please take us seriously. BusterD (talk) 00:46, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did take you all seriously too and that's why I have been trying to improve the article and expand on content I have never seen, like reading about his theater works or audio books, and follow the process. I also toe the line on all other edits. It's only until toeing that line no longer seems to work and IAR gets chipped away disproportionately instead of being an equal branch of the pillars that I am really frustrated. At the end of the day, if having this page up really hurts Wikipedia, please let me know how it hurts. And where is that mechanism where I can upload RS to expand people's access to RS? Thanks. Supermann (talk) 01:23, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not quite sure what to make of this one. The close seems okay, given it was all delete, and the one keep was rambling, incomprehensible, and wouldn't answer simple questions like "show us a source". At the same time, some of the references in the article, particularly the DublinLive and Sunday Times one seem to be worth considering - and there's no end of recent Indian media coverage for Sardar Udham where he has a starring role. This would be a lot easier discussion, both here and at AFD if User:Supermann would directly and briefly answer questions, and stick to the facts. Nfitz (talk) 15:41, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nfitz. I highly appreciate it. The fact of the matter is some of the RS are no longer accessible online freely. Even using web archive doesn't seem to work. One can only access them via Factiva if not some other world class digital library. If uploading the printout for such RS to dropbox and sharing the dropbox link is acceptable to everyone, I am happy to try. But if it's not meaningful to do so, I will just refrain from commenting further and just show remorse. With two endorsement now, it doesn't seem the trend is reversible. Someone would have to do what they have to do. No matter what I do, at the end of the day, someone would always jump out and say he is just briefly mentioned in those articles, seeking perfections, despite it was a significant role. The goal post keeps getting moved, making Wikipedia like a club of the elites instead of a free encyclopedia for knowledge sharing. I am really disheartened. This is not the kind of collaboration I signed up for. Maybe I am naive. I am sorry. Supermann (talk) 16:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I earlier requested you to assume good faith. Everyone, including you has the right to defend Wikipedia. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 16:27, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is doing all right with all you enforcers here. Assumption of good faith works both ways and so far you haven't shown me any by accusing me numerous times on COI. I have nothing to do declare. You are welcome to hunt me down. Supermann (talk) 10:14, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have applied the {{tempundelete}} template to the temporarily undeleted article as I just noticed that was not done as I would have expected. Earlier versions can be seen through view history. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When i was reviewing this article, i tagged this with COI[3]. I am aslo not convinced with Dublin Live source as it popped up a day after article was nominated for AfD. If author is really editing this with COI, they need to comply with WP:DISCLOSE so that Dublin Live and other sources can be reconsider.
Note to author: Editing a specific Wikipedia article per WP:COI is not a violation, but refusing to comply with COI policy is a violation of conflict of interest policy if one edits coi page(s). TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 16:14, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dublin Live popped up because October was the month of Sardar Udham, despite its failed its bid to represent India for the 94th Oscars. Please don't keep imposing your negative dark world view onto us. I have nothing COI-wise to declare. And any Check User can perform any kind of checks on me to see if there any sign of coordination with all of his other works' pages creation, incl. Red Election, Ridley Road (TV series), etc. Supermann (talk) 16:25, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Supermann, Sardar Udham is an Indian film. There might be some Indian media coverage about its representation for the 94th Oscars, including about the subject in question. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 16:32, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide one to support possible paid source, Dublin Live. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 05:04, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. Provide what now? COI? NONE. If you want to read about its failed bid for the Oscars, it's right there on Sardar Udham's controversy section. I am not gonna root for the Tamil film Koozhangal which made it. It's like asking me to choose which 2011 film is a better film. Kingdom of Dust: Beheading of Adam Smith or The Hangover Part II. The answer should be obvious. I am gonna abstain on alcohol by following Trump's advice. Thanks. Supermann (talk) 10:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It seems sources are not available to support Dublin Live. Thanks TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 10:45, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TheBirdsShedTears: If I may ask, what evidence is there that the Dublin Live article is paid for or COI? They openly state that they host user-generated content (though it may just be limited to comments and reviews) and that contributors can send in articles to the editing staff, but the only mention of payment that I've seen is in relation to compensation for damaged devices. I can understand the concern about Supermann being a COI editor given their obsessive behaviour but I think they're just a dedicated fan, especially given their hyping of Hogan's roles CiphriusKane (talk) 13:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CiphriusKane, If Dublin Live, a foreign media article is about Sardar Udham's Oscars representation[4], there might be some coverage from the Indian media. Author fails to provide one more source to show us that Dublin Live is not a paid source. Dublin Live article appeared a day after article was nominated for AfD. Academy Awards are one of the prominent awards and it seems if an Indian film tries to represent in Oscars, how could local media miss this report. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 14:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TheBirdsShedTears: I'm not sure what you are looking for. Sources that show DublinLive is not a paid source? Are there any sources that show DublinLive IS a paid source? Has this film actually been released in Dublin - I'm curious what would anyone's motive to pay for such an article! Nfitz (talk) 22:28, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TheBirdsShedTears This is an argument from ignorance. The only evidence you have provided for a COI are a coincidental timing. The claim that Dublin Live is a "foreign media" is also unconvincing, as the subject Stephen Hogan originally came from Dublin. Have you got any concrete evidence that there is a COI here? CiphriusKane (talk) 06:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One can declare coi by adding {{UserboxCOI|1=Wikipedia article name}} to userpage. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 16:22, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - close was an obvious delete, not sure why we're wasting so much time discussing it. —ScottyWong— 04:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relist: Following deep analysis I have come to the view a relist is appropriate, with no fault or incorrectness to the original close decision. A relist now may be less disruptive than the other pathway which is draftification then re-entry to mainspace with improved sources identified against the apparent significant roles mostly identified at the AfD, namely Starship Troopers 3: Marauder & Sardar Udham. While the DRV nomination statement did not seem to meet DRVpurpose the conversation from [5] seemed reasonable, particularly focusing on the interference from the Sock was an issue, and the removal rather than striking of the Sock's vote and subsequent entries left a somewhat disjointed looking discussion. Ultimately the low participation discussion diverged from examining specific sources due to the sock, with Supermann doing neither themselves not the article any favours by being SEALIONed, discussion BLUDGEONing, personal attacks and stupid asides rather than source focus. AfC is pointless as probably won't pass the AfC bar which is necessarily higher than the AfD bar which this article might ultimately scrape. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Relist if you like, altho the I wouldn't since the article's perfectly OK and here weren't any actual (accurate) argument made to delete in the original AfD, but whatever. I'll have more to say on the matter presently, for as an executive summary for right now:
The article's OK. We have tons of articles on actors less notable and less sourced than this guy. Thousand of articles where the actor is described as a "character actor" and never got close to a lead/title role in a BBC production as Hogan did.
If one doesn't want us to have perfectly OK articles like this, one could try to claim the subject doesn't meet the GNG. One would be wrong, but not by that much. The thing is tho, that case wasn't even made at the AfD. GNG wasn't mentioned. It wasn't a factor in any of this. The discussion was all around his roles, not his coverage.
The AfD was just really poor and the close was too. One problem (there were others) is that not one single assertion was made in favor of deletion that is actually true. That's unusual! And this was demonstrated during the AfD. I'll have plenty more to say about that presently. Herostratus (talk) 03:36, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. So a couple things, I'm mostly not going to link to other other pages, instead I'm going to speak English, and please DON'TTALKTOMELIKETHIS in return, thanks. I know how to access those pages if I want to.
And about verifying the bare facts of Hogan's career: This IMDd pages gives the basic CV. We can all agree that the "Filmography" part is essentially accurate, yes? (The "Biography" part is useless.) I'm not suggesting using an IMDd page as a ref in the article. I'm using it as the basis of "here are some true facts all neat in one place, for article purposes we can ref these to the works themselves or find better refs elsewhere eventually". Different things. OK, moving on.
So before I look at the merits of the AfD discussion itself, just some background on the subject himself. Understood that, at least technically, the merits of the article are not supposed to be the issue, still, useful background for analyzing the AfD. Bottom line is that the article is fine, and I'd be surprised if we've ever deleted an article for an actor with a CV like Hogan's. If we have it would be very few and we probably shouldn't have.
There's a great deal to look at so I'll hat it, you can read it if you don't want to take my word for it.
Merits of the article
So as far as the GNG goes, the subject meets the requirements I would say, altho granted with little to spare:
1) A full-size paragraph reviewing his acting in a film. The publication, Blueprintreview may not be super big it has a decent article. It's opinion, so reliability is not a factor. This link was in the article.
2) This is a full long interview in Dublin Live, which looks like a legit mag about popular culture stuff (willing to be instructed otherwise). Somebody above was saying it's maybe paid-for content, but is there any indication of that? And I mean Dublin Live is there to cover films and stuff. It is a Mirror property and the Mirror is a tabloid, so... if the question is "How confident can we be that Dublin Live didn't make up some of Hogan's quotes or what have you", that's a legit question. I'd assume not until directed to some contrary info, I guess? Anyway the interview is about a film Hogan is in, not about him in the sense of the names of his dogs etc, altho you do have bits like "I'm a bit of a history freak" etc. This link was not available during the AfD I think, so it wouldn't have been a factor then, understood.
(EDIT: 3) There is an article in The Times which has several paragraphs just on Hogan, according to User:CiphriusKane (I can't access it cos paywall). Granted, not known at the time of AfD (but knowable then?)
There's like 68 refs and I haven't checked them all to see if any others are more than bare listings. Let's assume not or we wouldn't even be here.
If you've already decided that you're here to get rid of articles like this and 404 the next 23,000 people who want to read about this subject, and want to stand on the GNG, then you could try to say these don't count as "multiple" instances of "in depth" coverage. Matter of opinion. I wouldn't agree.
This is the only time when he is indisputably the lead role in a major production, but I mean right there we've put the lie to assertions that he hasn't done anything notable. Continuing:
That's that, so he had "only" two title-lead roles (one if you don't count Kingdom of Dust), so let's continue with some lesser roles.
Subject has what looks to be an important role (4th in the non-alphabetical credits) in Sardar Udham, which is blulinked and in fact has a long article with 90 (!) refs. Indian film. It was distributed by Amazon Prime Video. (I see above that some people are saying it wasn't an important role, so not sure here.)
Third in the (non-alphabetical) credits for Starship Troopers 3: Marauder which looks like crap but is in a film series which is C-list notable at least. The book and the first movie are famous.
Skipping a little more quickly, it looks like most of the rest is filling out the CV with character roles and small roles... Kat & Alfie: Redwater, recurring character... Recurring character in a soap opera... that sort of thing. But there's a whole honken lot of it.
So but I'll tell you what. Pick a movie at random. Click on the last-listed bluelinked cast member. That person will most probably be described as a "character actor" and will not have had any rules as substantial as our subject has had and probably not as many, and they will also struggle to meet the GNG if they even do. If you all think we have way too many articles on actors, you've got many thousands of articles to go after before getting to this guy.
And the man's also been on stage at the Royal National Theatre ("one of the United Kingdom's three most prominent publicly funded performing arts venues",) the Abbey Theatre ("One of the country's leading cultural institutions"), and Gate Theatre, maybe others. (I don't have a ref for that, but there are presumably refs out there... we can find them and add them in the course of time... oh wait, the article was erased, so maybe not.) So let's see... we have this with some roles... here is the Abbey, with the subject as Algernon Moncrieff in The Importance of being Earnest, which is the second lead IIRC. Second male lead anyway. Here we have three roles at the Royal National, minor roles I think. There are plenty other refs in the article for other stage work.
OK. That's for the career. So far. Next we'll look at the AfD. Herostratus (talk) 08:34, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. Now to the AfD itself.
So, executive summary: You've got 4 delete voices. One is the nominator, User:DGG. It's a legit nom, not super high effort, but legit. It makes two points, both wrong and so demonstrated at the AfD. Second, a super-low-effort 7-word statement by User:Drmies. Third, a super-low-effort 4-word close by User:BusterD. Fourth, the contributions by User:TheBirdsShedTears, which are useless and should have been discarded. The close was wrong, and the evidence before me leads me to believe it was wrong because the analysis was rushed and shallow (can't prove this, just using my common sense).
I'll expound on all this and prove my assertions below, you can read it if you like.
Merits of the AfD discussion
So I want to focus on User:TheBirdsShedTears, because he was the only delete voice that had anything to say beyond a soundbite. So let's step thru his comments and the responses.
1) "Delete, a non-notable actor with minor roles. Fails WP:NACTOR as well general notability guidelines" and then a legit question: "Did Hogan has played any lead role? If yes, please specify which ones..." So good, a question to be answered: has he played any lead role? And it was answered, in detail: "It's right there in the article/filmography... (and then this is demonstrated).
2)User:TheBirdsShedTears's response was "Making claims do not verify his roles. It needs reliable sources to support the claims. As I can see, the subject has played zero lead roles. The guidelines are very simple: WP:NACTOR: "1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions..." Again: this was pointed out, and just repeating is annoying at least. And in fact User:Supermann did rise to the bait a bit. But again, he answered the point.
3) "Which source(s) indicate his lead roles? Please provide here so that we can better understand your sources" was User:TheBirdsShedTears's response. So, now we are getting into behavioral-problem territory with User:TheBirdsShedTears, here. It's hard to figure out what what he's up to, but it doesn't look too good. Right? This is not normal discussion. So anyway, if I was User:Supermann I'd be going "wtf?". So, here is User:Supermann's response, under what I could call call a fair amount of provocation:
Before we get bogged down in lead role, let's recall the guideline doesn't even use the term. The guideline instead uses "significant roles." So I am not gonna go down this rabbit hole, when the answers you seek are on the filmography by ctrl+f finding "lead role" - an imprecise term used by others. You at least should see those two aforementioned movies that are widely accessible."
Which is testy but not accusatory. But User:TheBirdsShedTears decided to pretend that it was...
4) ...as his response was "Please assume good faith. You are requested to provide sources here that indicates 'significant roles' of the subject than making false claims regarding a WP:COI page." The next comment is User:Triosdeity, an hour later, popping in with "Off-topic but you could be more respectful to @TheBirdsShedTears:, your comments are a little passive aggressive."
So, besides tripling down on the provocation with the mindless repetition thing, now we've got something even more troubling: we're switching over to a tag team pretending that User:Supermann is misbehaving. He's not, but of course these sort of claims can be a productive avenue to sow chaos, ill will, and emotion generally. You've all seen it I'm sure.
User:TheBirdsShedTears is a new user who has already demonstrated that he's either up to no good or lacks competence to engage in discussion, with the provocative robot-on-a-repeat-loop trick. User:Triosdeity is a sockpuppet and/or sockmaster. He popped in from nowhere at a very convenient time to double down on User:TheBirdsShedTears's new, odd, and false (and inflammatory) accusation. Are they the same person? There's no way to know for sure. There are procedures for looking into this sort of thing, and maybe they should be deployed. I know what I think.
But whether or no, we're going nowhere here. The sockpuppet took over and had the same general belief about the article I guess (how bout that). But there's nothing there. User:TheBirdsShedTears has had nothing to say except to repeat a question over and over that's already been addressed. Even if he is acting in good faith and just hasn't gotten a handle yet on how we roll here, he's got nothing useful to say, so I wouldn't think you'd pay a much attention to him. Herostratus (talk) 16:09, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We have the nominator, User:DGG, with: "Does not appear to have had any really major roles; a lot of minor ones -- mostly as figures in minor documentaries -- doesn't make for a notable actor. I don't see that any of the references discusses him in a substantial way--they're reviews of the minor films which, naturally mention him."
It's a reasonable nom, no complaints. It's just that, with what was already in the article and what came out in the discussion (after the nomination), we know that he actually had a few "really major" roles (Again, one title/lead role (or two if you want to squint), and a couple-few substantial supporting actor roles.) We also know that there's a ref that gives him a paragraph. Just one (the other one came out later), but "one" is "any". So that's not accurate either. So, fine, nom was was made, nom was addressed, nom was shown to be probably not accurate, no problem, that's what we're here for.
So but then User:Drmies comes in at the end of the AfD with seven words -- "Delete, per nominator, not a notable actor". But you can't be "per nom" if if nom has been knocked for six. Which is what happened between nomination and Drmies' comment. If Drmies read any of the AfD it doesn't show. The comment isn't disruptive but it is devoid of value except for counting heads.
That's the entirety of the case made to destroy the article. The only other person involved was the closer User:BusterD, who spoke even less -- four words, "The result was delete", which doesn't give any further insight into what if anything might be wrong with the article. I'll talk about the close specifically presently. Herostratus (talk) 06:41, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Herostratus, I am not convinced with your false claims. It seems there are serious COI concerns regarding the subject in question. Also, if you feel i have any connection with User:Triosdeity, you may file a report at this SPI. I maybe new to Wikipedia, but i can understand one's concerns. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 16:29, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I hear you. No I'm not expecting to convince you, I'm talking to the audience. I don't know about COI because I'm mostly just engaging with the article and the AfD, where COI wasn't mentioned (except once, in passing, by the sockpuppet), so I'm not addressing that right now. I might later. Herostratus (talk) 06:41, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
, so moving on from the AfD to the actual close itself. The objections are two: that closer didn't read the AfD correctly (see above section), and the closer gave zero explanation of their thinking or reasons for their decisions, which in not acceptable in this case. And further, the closer is circling the wagons and doubling down here, which is not a good look and doesn't inspire confidence in his thought process at the close.
Detailed exposition on that and related issues are hatted below, read as you wish.
Merits of the close itself, this discussion, and other things
So right off: I get that everyone is busy. I get that the admin corps is way understaffed. I get that there are maybe scores of expired AfD to close every day. I can't help that.
I don't know if BusterD spent more than 30 second on this close. I don't know if BusterD read, skimmed, or didn't read the AfD. I don't know if BusterD was of the mind "Oh OK, DCC and Drmies are for delete -- respected editors. And here's another guy for delete, TheBirdsShedTears and they seem to have a fair bit to say, this is good enough for me, I will delete".
There's no way for me to know because BusterD didn't say anything.
I get that that four-word closes are common, and they're OK sometimes. I understand that "but we've always done this" is a thing people say. That doesn't make them functional, useful, desirable, or acceptable in fraught cases. I know that we're busy. I also know that turning that into a virtue is not excellent. BusterD, doubling down here, seems to be trying to turn that into a virtue.
If BusterD didn't have time to do a proper close, he could have left it to someone else. If the AfD had expired and it didn't look like any other admin was going to have time to do it either, and since it couldn't just be left open, BusterD should have closed with no action, probably with "no consensus to delete" (meaning "no consensus that anyone has the time to analyze"). Marginal articles that aren't obvious garbage aren't hurting anything; the can always be deleted later, while restoring them is a lot harder, so we need to have a fail-safe approach here: failure of the system to provide enough resources to do procedures properly should not have destructive results.
So, here I am, writing a long and detailed analysis. You don't have to agree with any of it (although not agreeing with the parts that are prima facie facts isn't a good look, but: people). But you do have to acknowledge that it's significant brainwork. I've done this before, and been met with, at times, "TL;DR --we don't need a wall of 'facts' and 'reasoning' from Poindexter Pencilneck here; my 15-second analysis is good enough for me". Sure hope I don't get that here. It's one thing to not have the time or even expertise to do lengthy analysis of stuff; it's another thing to disdain and reject if someone happens to come along who does. If you don't have the time read and consider, that totally fine (we're busy and its a hobby), but let's not make that a positive good. It smacks of anti-intellectualism which you do see here, and it isn't a path we want to be going down, in my opinion.
OK. I'm only slightly disappointed in User:DGG; the nom was legit, but it wasn't super high-effort and throwing acceptable articles into a process (AfD) which is kind of a crapshoot and hasn't improved over the years... I'd rather not see long term, highly respected editors/admins like User:DGG doing that. Long-term editors, and admins, are supposed to show leadership in protecting the project and its data units. This is just my opinion tho.
But I mean User:Drmies, I'm disappointed. User:Scottywong, I'm disappointed (you didn't participate in the AfD, but you did come here with an unuseful and anti-intellectual comment ("Close was an obvious delete, not sure why we're wasting so much time discussing it.") User:DGG you are also a long-term admin.
I actually don't care that much about this particular little article. I'm taking all this huge honken time and efforthere because I want to see you more senior admins step up your game. Newer admins like User:BusterD don't need to be mindlessly backed up. The admin corps is not a labor union. Instead, they need to be brought to understand some important behaviors expected of admins, like:
1) When you do admin actions, take time and consider the action. If you can't, leave it someone who does have time. If if it looks no one else is going to show up and the action has to be done anyway, fail safe -- if not enough thought can be applied to a matter, then don't block, don't delete, don't damage.
2) Four word closes should be reserved for discussions that are edging toward bog-obvious SNOW territory. Otherwise, do the courtesy of engaging with with the other editors by explaining your decision. (This is also good politics.)
3) For admin actions that are objected to on a reasonable basis, you should probably be reversing about half of them. A fair percentage anyway.
4) Difficult as it can be, you need to admit errors. We understand this can hurt, but this a workplace, and if you can't you won't be able to learn and grow, and we need admins to learn and grow or else the project may fail.
5) While we have many core non-negotiable policies (NPOV, RS, etc), we are not rule bound here. This is not the DMV. Admins are here to preserve and defend the encyclopedia; everything else is mostly noise. Guidelines are important to know well, and are a good starting pointing for thinking about an issue, and should be respected to avoid chaos and endless argumentation. But not more.
Editors do and should follow and depend on rules when they come here, but as we learn and grow we ought to develop a more nuanced understanding of what the rules are for, how each one came to be, what it actually says, and what its intent is; who uses it how and why, in what ways is it misused (which most are, sometimes), how much it isfollowed and how much not, and when it is appropriate to consider the heading for (I think) all guidelines: "[This guideline] is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." And all this applies double if you are an admin.
But policies are different. You are not given permission to ignore WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, WP:COPYRIGHT, WP:CIVIL -- nor WP:BURO and WP:IAR -- even if you don't like them. Even if you hate them. Because they are policies not rules. As an admin you must at least pretend to accept and follow policies.
This whole thing is just very troubling. This is not good. Herostratus (talk) 21:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Herostratus, It indicates you criticise other editors and their options than presenting a detailed analysis about a non-notable topic which i think should be redirected to Kingdom of Dust: Beheading of Adam Smith if supported by reliable sources. You misunderstood criteria no. 1 and 3. 1) "has played significant role in multiple notable films" and 3). "Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment". TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 02:59, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:TheBirdsShedTears, criteria #3 is not on the table and never was, no one has suggested that Hogan has made any unique contributions to the art of film. It's criteria #1 that's in play: "has played significant roles in multiple notable films". Here (as always in life) we have to interpret the meaning and intent of the passage. My view is that "multiple" means "two or more", not "several". I think that most other editors accept that, altho many don't, and there's no "right" or "wrong" there.
But "significant role" shouldn't have to mean "the main protaganist" or "the first or second listed on the credits and poster" I am pretty sure. What is a "significant role" varies a lot; Mark Twain Tonight has one, My Dinner with Andre has two, Oceans 11 has like six or more and that's far from uncommon, but let's say top 3 or 4 or 5 roles might be a starting point if you don't know more. (Screen time can be a factor, but it's not the deciding factor).
So... my conclusion is that Hogan has had significant roles in several notable productions. You'd have to interpret the rule rather strictly to disagree; if you're wanting first or second lead roles in three or more productions, you're talking about deleting most of our articles on actors. And I mean, in cases of differing interpretation we want to lean to more retaining data as opposed to 404'ing thousands of readers. In my view. Herostratus (talk) 08:22, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I have suggested Hogan had made "prolific" contributions due to the long filmography, if you search for it here just by ctrl+F. But apparently, TheBirdsShedTears and I read English differently. Sorry. I am not a native speaker/writer of English. Supermann (talk) 15:51, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:User:Herostratus, I must ask whether before your posting above you were aware of User:DGG's previous attempts to help rehabilitate User:Supermann after User:Yamla twice blocked them four years ago for sockpuppetry and undisclosed paid editing on Thomas Price (actor) and Bliss Media? In my reading prior to this close, I noticed Supermann's block log. That led me to two threads here and here. DGG and Supermann weren't exactly strangers. If after these 2017 discussions DGG this year chose to nominate one of Supermann's pages for deletion, I trust David's judgement and unspoken experience with this confessed and relapsed bad actor, a person David has met in RL. In my humble opinion, DGG was being kind by nominating it. I closed it quietly as DENY. I will confess I didn't expect Supermann to apply to DRV as a total innocent. BusterD (talk) 05:04, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I sent an email to Dublin Live as well as Brian Dillon, author of Dublin Live article, but it seems they're not ready to discuss the issue. Supermann should comply with our UPE and COI, if they're engaged in such activities. From article's history, it seems they are keeping an eye on the subject in question than contributing in an encyclopaedic manner. Regards TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 05:09, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Rightly or wrongly given stuff recently added here I've raised the matter at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Supermann to the best of my ability so that matter can be dealt without outside of discussion of Hogan - I was concerned about WP:Casting asperations but per BusterD Supermann has history so perhaps needs greater scrutiny, but does not mean they are guilty as there are other very plausible explanations. Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:34, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Didn't realize Wikipedia:Casting aspersions exist. My explanations are below. Enough is enough about TheBirdShedTears behaviors. The guy claims he speaks Hindi, but so far he has not even watched Sardar Udham to really understand what the hot film was all about and why people have been talking about it ever since it came out last month on Amazon Prime Video, despite not being able to represent India at the 94th Oscars. Good luck getting a response from Dublin Live and Brian Dillon. My suspect is you are a nobody and that's why the capitalist media are not interested in responding. If you do have luck hearing from them, you should also reach out to The Daytona Beach News-Journal and the reporter Rick de Yampert and ask them why they have entirely removed the 2011 article from their website regarding the local premiere of Kingdom of Dust, meaning even a subscription can't turn up the article. Are they ashamed of the coverage? Was it Chequebook journalism? There must be a conspiracy here. Good luck being Sherlock Holmes!!! Supermann (talk) 15:46, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also would like to remind you that, "When investigating possible cases of conflict of interest editing, editors must be careful not to out other editors. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over the conflict of interest guideline." And you are borderline on that now. Thanks. Supermann (talk) 16:27, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't made any COI judgments, so I'm not sure why you're accusing me. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 16:35, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What BusterD is doing reminds me of Cultural Revolution. When I had socket puppetry more than 4.5 years ago, it was because I had no ideas about the rules and wanted to upload high-resolution pictures authorized to be released. If you check all the discussions at the time, the defense has been consistent and simple. Ever since the education by DGG in person here in NYC, I have realized my naivete and haven't used socket puppetry for even one single day, no matter how heated the subsequent debates have become and how I lament the lack of participation from around the world. There are at least 500 millions Chinese still can't use Wikipedia because it's blocked by the Chinese government. I could totally not have reached out to DGG back in 2017, had I not missed my 2006 contributions to Superman Returns (soundtrack) that has kept me going for so long. DGG has remained very objective ever since and throughout this process, showing no favoritism towards a fellow New Yorker whatsoever so that you guys can know for sure his stature and incorruptibility. I am a total innocent here because I am obviously not part of some unknown fledgling media agency out there trying to pop up some non-notable companies or actors. It was all about the passion of the works that I have watched myself that I decided that the knowledge needs to be shared to others. When you create something, you don't want it to be deleted. As simple as that. I now will refrain from creating an English page for the Hong Kong movie about Anita Mui and fr: The Great War of Archimedes, as I currently don't see the meaning of doing so. I am lethargic at this point, but I am extremely grateful for the kindness and time that a total stranger Herostratus had shown me, despite we have never met in person or interacted at all on Wikipedia. Supermann (talk) 15:29, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are obviously piling on, because of our old grudges on Film censorship in China. Even CiphriusKane has moved on, because there are better things to do in life. Please go produce/direct/write an actual movie instead of being a forever film school grad student. I look forward to watching your productions in the history of filmmaking. As simple as that. Thanks. My forever critic. Supermann (talk) 16:44, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relist I am a bit concerned that Supermann's zealotry may have prejudiced the closure, and that had they been less bludgeoning the discussion would have been relisted for a second week CiphriusKane (talk) 06:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Now this is the CiphriusKane I remember, having prompted me to explore his theater works, coming up with a long list of filmography now people are saying non-notable. I haven't seen any of his theater works and had to rely on written sources. I have only seen one Broadway show here in NYC, Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark, as I am generally not interested in live theater work, because there are no different shots, i.e. close-up, etc. Can't afford the tickets. Have a good day sir! Supermann (talk) 15:36, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.