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.
Delete Wikipedia is not meant to be a mirror of IMDb. With minor actors IMDb often merges multiple actors into one listing, it is not a reliable source at all, and so if we have no other we should not have an article.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
19:44, 2 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. If those sources constitute in-depth coverage I'll eat my hat. World News Network is a news aggregator, not a producer of content. The page presented aggregates an interview by the subject (interviews are primary sources that don't back up notability claims; it's also an interview by the producer of the film he was making at that time which doubles down on it not being independent) as well as the Wikipedia article about Famiglietti. It is offensive to the intelligence of anyone reading this discussion that
Dream Focus would try to pass that off as an in-depth reliable source. TVGuide is a listing of credits, not in-depth coverage. The CTPost interview linked by
Lightburst is the exact same text as the Associated Press link that Dream Focus posted, so it's one source, and it's an interview, which again, gives little credibility to a claim of notability. Finally, Lightburst knows very well that simply writing a book doesn't make one notable, so it amazes me that that's being held up as an indicator of notability. What a load of rubbish. And oh, quelle surprise - it was posted at
WP:ARS. ♠
PMC♠
(talk)20:48, 11 October 2020 (UTC)reply
I have no idea why you would bring up DUIs or domestic violence as the only possible ways an actor might make the news or otherwise obtain coverage. Some actors obtain media coverage by virtue of the quality of their performances. Unfortunately Mr. Famiglietti does not appear to have been one of those actors. The Basic Criteria under
WP:NBIO is this: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." No one at this AfD has provided any indication that Mr. Famiglietti has been the subject of such coverage. SNGs tell us who is likely to meet the basic criteria, but do not rubber-stamp a notability claim in the absence of reliable sources: "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." It's obvious that in the absence of any in-depth reliable sources, there is no policy-based reason to retain this article. ♠
PMC♠
(talk)22:07, 11 October 2020 (UTC)reply
We will have to disagree. See
WP:NA topic is presumed to merit an article if: it meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy. I am not sure how we could read this any other way. He passes the subject-specific guideline. Unless you can show he does not?
Lightburst (
talk)
22:15, 11 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Per
WP:NBIO, as I have already quoted from the section that describes the SNGs: "Meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." It's that simple. An SNG is not a guarantee of inclusion when sources do not exist. ♠
PMC♠
(talk)22:18, 11 October 2020 (UTC)reply
we had this discussion over the years. Especially in regard to Olympians - you may as well AfD about 89% of Olympian articles. I will let others weigh in as I have said enough.
Lightburst (
talk)
22:26, 11 October 2020 (UTC)reply
It should be clarified that none of the references added have any significant content about Famiglietti. The best of them is a two-sentence paragraph; the others are name-drops. ♠
PMC♠
(talk)06:26, 12 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep He had starring roles in Hollywood films, so I think that qualifies him as notable. Note that this article was entirely unsourced when it was nominated for deletion, but it does have several sources now.
Funtoedit1212 (
talk)
01:15, 13 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Only source that is currently in the article that supports
WP:GNG is Connecticut Post. The remaining (Los Angeles Times, Us Weekly and Entertainment Weekly are passing mentions of the subject and fail "significant coverage" required. His book and its subsequent play do not seem to have helped to garner any press. Five pages of my Google search resulted in nothing of significance. Searching Google News, I found a few more passing mentions related to Spy Intervention with
https://deadline.com/2016/10/comedy-the-divorce-party-gets-production-start-date-lead-cast-1201844891/ diving in a bit deeper, but not enough to count as significant coverage. Maybe
WP:TOOSOON.
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
01:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Closer note: The above editor has followed me here after warring with me and harassing me on the
Rick Beato article that I have been improving. Participated in no AfDs for a month but came to vote !vote obstinately on this article that I worked on. Again making the same tedious edits
1 From the editor’s AfD stats it is clear that they followed me
2Lightburst (
talk)
02:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment I was following the editor because of the problems I saw at Rick Beato that have most recently included
MOS:PUNCT, Wikipedia's copyright policy as shown here, and
WP:OWN. With such a complete lack of understanding of
MOS:CAPS,
MOS:IMAGESIZE (as shown when I was reverted on this article), I won't engage further, but clearly we have a problem editor. Yes, my block log is longer, but so is my edit count. In the end, however, whether or not I followed the editor here the issue is whether or not Mark Famiglietti meets
WP:N, and as I have show, the subject does not appear to. Oh, and we do not
WP:VOTE, another error that Lightburst continues to make.
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
03:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)reply
I was following the editor.. Yeah you are. If you think Lighburst is a "problem editor" open a case at ANI. They are feeling harassed by you. See
WP:HOUND: following the editor, calling them a "problem editor", continuing to push a content dispute with a litany of WP: links in an unrelated AfD page, voting angular to them right after they voted. --
GreenC14:12, 14 October 2020 (UTC)reply
CommentUser:Walter Görlitz Seriously, you opined on "incorrect date formats!" [exclamation in original]. And admitted to
WP:Wikistalking. What is your malfunction? Whatever happened to
WP:AGF WTH?
FWIW, I made all of the dates uniform using D/M/Y format. But how consequential is that?
Ad hominem fallacy? And what does it have to do with the AFD?
I went to the project and requested help and Lightburst followed me there. This article is within the scope of the musicians project, so when I see the editor messing up, and not admitting to their own stalking, I have no problems being forthright. What's preventing me from correcting things: Lightburst reverts without question any changes I've made, whether correct or not.
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
16:29, 14 October 2020 (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.
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.
Delete Wikipedia is not meant to be a mirror of IMDb. With minor actors IMDb often merges multiple actors into one listing, it is not a reliable source at all, and so if we have no other we should not have an article.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
19:44, 2 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. If those sources constitute in-depth coverage I'll eat my hat. World News Network is a news aggregator, not a producer of content. The page presented aggregates an interview by the subject (interviews are primary sources that don't back up notability claims; it's also an interview by the producer of the film he was making at that time which doubles down on it not being independent) as well as the Wikipedia article about Famiglietti. It is offensive to the intelligence of anyone reading this discussion that
Dream Focus would try to pass that off as an in-depth reliable source. TVGuide is a listing of credits, not in-depth coverage. The CTPost interview linked by
Lightburst is the exact same text as the Associated Press link that Dream Focus posted, so it's one source, and it's an interview, which again, gives little credibility to a claim of notability. Finally, Lightburst knows very well that simply writing a book doesn't make one notable, so it amazes me that that's being held up as an indicator of notability. What a load of rubbish. And oh, quelle surprise - it was posted at
WP:ARS. ♠
PMC♠
(talk)20:48, 11 October 2020 (UTC)reply
I have no idea why you would bring up DUIs or domestic violence as the only possible ways an actor might make the news or otherwise obtain coverage. Some actors obtain media coverage by virtue of the quality of their performances. Unfortunately Mr. Famiglietti does not appear to have been one of those actors. The Basic Criteria under
WP:NBIO is this: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." No one at this AfD has provided any indication that Mr. Famiglietti has been the subject of such coverage. SNGs tell us who is likely to meet the basic criteria, but do not rubber-stamp a notability claim in the absence of reliable sources: "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." It's obvious that in the absence of any in-depth reliable sources, there is no policy-based reason to retain this article. ♠
PMC♠
(talk)22:07, 11 October 2020 (UTC)reply
We will have to disagree. See
WP:NA topic is presumed to merit an article if: it meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy. I am not sure how we could read this any other way. He passes the subject-specific guideline. Unless you can show he does not?
Lightburst (
talk)
22:15, 11 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Per
WP:NBIO, as I have already quoted from the section that describes the SNGs: "Meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." It's that simple. An SNG is not a guarantee of inclusion when sources do not exist. ♠
PMC♠
(talk)22:18, 11 October 2020 (UTC)reply
we had this discussion over the years. Especially in regard to Olympians - you may as well AfD about 89% of Olympian articles. I will let others weigh in as I have said enough.
Lightburst (
talk)
22:26, 11 October 2020 (UTC)reply
It should be clarified that none of the references added have any significant content about Famiglietti. The best of them is a two-sentence paragraph; the others are name-drops. ♠
PMC♠
(talk)06:26, 12 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep He had starring roles in Hollywood films, so I think that qualifies him as notable. Note that this article was entirely unsourced when it was nominated for deletion, but it does have several sources now.
Funtoedit1212 (
talk)
01:15, 13 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Only source that is currently in the article that supports
WP:GNG is Connecticut Post. The remaining (Los Angeles Times, Us Weekly and Entertainment Weekly are passing mentions of the subject and fail "significant coverage" required. His book and its subsequent play do not seem to have helped to garner any press. Five pages of my Google search resulted in nothing of significance. Searching Google News, I found a few more passing mentions related to Spy Intervention with
https://deadline.com/2016/10/comedy-the-divorce-party-gets-production-start-date-lead-cast-1201844891/ diving in a bit deeper, but not enough to count as significant coverage. Maybe
WP:TOOSOON.
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
01:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Closer note: The above editor has followed me here after warring with me and harassing me on the
Rick Beato article that I have been improving. Participated in no AfDs for a month but came to vote !vote obstinately on this article that I worked on. Again making the same tedious edits
1 From the editor’s AfD stats it is clear that they followed me
2Lightburst (
talk)
02:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment I was following the editor because of the problems I saw at Rick Beato that have most recently included
MOS:PUNCT, Wikipedia's copyright policy as shown here, and
WP:OWN. With such a complete lack of understanding of
MOS:CAPS,
MOS:IMAGESIZE (as shown when I was reverted on this article), I won't engage further, but clearly we have a problem editor. Yes, my block log is longer, but so is my edit count. In the end, however, whether or not I followed the editor here the issue is whether or not Mark Famiglietti meets
WP:N, and as I have show, the subject does not appear to. Oh, and we do not
WP:VOTE, another error that Lightburst continues to make.
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
03:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)reply
I was following the editor.. Yeah you are. If you think Lighburst is a "problem editor" open a case at ANI. They are feeling harassed by you. See
WP:HOUND: following the editor, calling them a "problem editor", continuing to push a content dispute with a litany of WP: links in an unrelated AfD page, voting angular to them right after they voted. --
GreenC14:12, 14 October 2020 (UTC)reply
CommentUser:Walter Görlitz Seriously, you opined on "incorrect date formats!" [exclamation in original]. And admitted to
WP:Wikistalking. What is your malfunction? Whatever happened to
WP:AGF WTH?
FWIW, I made all of the dates uniform using D/M/Y format. But how consequential is that?
Ad hominem fallacy? And what does it have to do with the AFD?
I went to the project and requested help and Lightburst followed me there. This article is within the scope of the musicians project, so when I see the editor messing up, and not admitting to their own stalking, I have no problems being forthright. What's preventing me from correcting things: Lightburst reverts without question any changes I've made, whether correct or not.
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
16:29, 14 October 2020 (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.