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. As the comments mention, there isn't any reliable coverage to prove any that any of his parts are noteworthy, or significant 3rd party independent coverage at all
Black Kite 18:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Bit-part actor with no third-party relible sources to indicate significance or notability - I don't believe an imdb page counts. Quite possibly a
Wikipedia:Conflict of interest since the only non-anon contributor's name is the same as subject's email address. To show good faith, I feel I should announce immediately that I know Lee Neville personally. I have struggled with my decision over nominating this article for some months but feel my personal involvement doesn't prevent me from nominating this article, nor should I use it as an excuse not to do so when I feel it doesn't comply with Wikipedia policies.
GDallimore (
Talk) 19:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete fails the notability and/or verifiability policy/guideline by not having significant coverage in multiple reliable 3rd party sources. No way to verify that any of his roles were significant.
Jasynnash2 (
talk) 11:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia based on fact. Information in this article is a matter of fact. Any information that hasn't been backed up by information elsewhere on the web has been corrected. Lee Neville is an actor who has a proven career as such. In regards to the comments of G Dallimore in particular and also those of Jasynnash2's - simply googling his name Lee Neville will reveal information from renowned third party institutions/directories/services which are not controlled by the actor in question. In addition, as to G Dallimore's comments regarding the IMDb- the IMDb page of actor Lee Neville was not created by Lee Neville. The IMDb itself is known throughout the world as a reputable database of actors. G Dallimore's constant monitoring of this article and
Wikipedia:Conflict of interest due to knowing the individual and seeing him in a negative way is malicious and does not prove or disprove statements of represented fact in this article, and is not what Wikipedia is about. It is recommended that this article remains as it is, barring any information that needs to be cited. User:emotionboy|emotionboy]] (
Talk) 18:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Reply let's start with
notability, what importance/significance does this person have in accordance with that policy? Simply existing isn't the same as being notable.
verifiability again simple existence isn't the same as verifying that he is notable and why. IMDB is not a reliable source per
the reliable sources policy neither are directories/services which only prove existence and not notability. Please make yourself more familiar with the policies and guidelines and if you can find reliable 3rd party sources which cover the subject in a significant non-trivial manner include them in the article. Thanks.
Jasynnash2 (
talk) 08:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability --
Whpq (
talk) 16:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)reply
This article has various external links that cover significant coverage. These are sources which are reputable and have rigorous guidelines. Contrary to previous statements by Jasynnash2 the IMDb is reputable. Should you have a problem with that, feel free to challenge every celebrity/actor that refers to the IMDb as an external link on Wikipedia- and good luck! An article is also worthy of note if it fulfils the Wikipedia notibility requirements. Again, the external links confirm that. It is unknown why there are constant attempts to vandalise this article but such attempts are unmerited, malicious and unacceptable. Please see guidelines to being a Wikipedia user. For now, please view the guidelines below regardfing notability. Then feel free to re-read this article and you will find it complies with Wikipedia guidelines.
User:emotionboy|emotionboy]] (
Talk) 18:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)reply
If a topic has received significant coverage in
reliable sources that are
independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable.
"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and
no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.[1]
"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow
verifiable evaluation of notability, per
the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass
published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.[2]
"Sources,"[3] defined on Wikipedia as
secondary sources, provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred.[4]
"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising,
self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.[5]
"Presumed" means that substantive coverage
in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not suitable for inclusion. For example, it may violate
what Wikipedia is not.[6]
A topic for which this criterion is deemed to have been met by consensus, is usually worthy of notice, and satisfies one of the criteria for a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia. Verifiable facts and content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for inclusion within another article.
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.
^Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on
IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of
Bill Clinton (Martin Walker (1992-01-06).
"Tough love child of Kennedy". The Guardian.) is plainly trivial.
^Self-promotion, autobiography, and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. The published works should be someone else writing independently about the topic. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it. Otherwise, someone could give their own topic as much notability as they want by simply expounding on it outside of Wikipedia, which would defeat the purpose of the concept. Also, neutral sources should exist in order to guarantee a
neutral article can be written — self-promotion is not neutral (obviously), and self-published sources often are biased if even unintentionally: see
Wikipedia:Autobiography and
Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for discussion of neutrality concerns of such sources. Even non-promotional self-published sources, in the rare cases they may exist, are still not evidence of notability as they do not measure the attention a subject has received by the world at large.
^Including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, scientific journals, etc. In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article.
^Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. Mere republications of a single source or news wire service do not always constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing articles in the same geographic region about an occurrence, does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Specifically, several journals publishing the same article within the same geographic region from a news wire service is not a multiplicity of works.
^Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of interest by the world at large. See also:
Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for handling of such situations.
^Moreover, not all coverage in
reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as
reliable sources.
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. As the comments mention, there isn't any reliable coverage to prove any that any of his parts are noteworthy, or significant 3rd party independent coverage at all
Black Kite 18:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Bit-part actor with no third-party relible sources to indicate significance or notability - I don't believe an imdb page counts. Quite possibly a
Wikipedia:Conflict of interest since the only non-anon contributor's name is the same as subject's email address. To show good faith, I feel I should announce immediately that I know Lee Neville personally. I have struggled with my decision over nominating this article for some months but feel my personal involvement doesn't prevent me from nominating this article, nor should I use it as an excuse not to do so when I feel it doesn't comply with Wikipedia policies.
GDallimore (
Talk) 19:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete fails the notability and/or verifiability policy/guideline by not having significant coverage in multiple reliable 3rd party sources. No way to verify that any of his roles were significant.
Jasynnash2 (
talk) 11:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia based on fact. Information in this article is a matter of fact. Any information that hasn't been backed up by information elsewhere on the web has been corrected. Lee Neville is an actor who has a proven career as such. In regards to the comments of G Dallimore in particular and also those of Jasynnash2's - simply googling his name Lee Neville will reveal information from renowned third party institutions/directories/services which are not controlled by the actor in question. In addition, as to G Dallimore's comments regarding the IMDb- the IMDb page of actor Lee Neville was not created by Lee Neville. The IMDb itself is known throughout the world as a reputable database of actors. G Dallimore's constant monitoring of this article and
Wikipedia:Conflict of interest due to knowing the individual and seeing him in a negative way is malicious and does not prove or disprove statements of represented fact in this article, and is not what Wikipedia is about. It is recommended that this article remains as it is, barring any information that needs to be cited. User:emotionboy|emotionboy]] (
Talk) 18:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Reply let's start with
notability, what importance/significance does this person have in accordance with that policy? Simply existing isn't the same as being notable.
verifiability again simple existence isn't the same as verifying that he is notable and why. IMDB is not a reliable source per
the reliable sources policy neither are directories/services which only prove existence and not notability. Please make yourself more familiar with the policies and guidelines and if you can find reliable 3rd party sources which cover the subject in a significant non-trivial manner include them in the article. Thanks.
Jasynnash2 (
talk) 08:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability --
Whpq (
talk) 16:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)reply
This article has various external links that cover significant coverage. These are sources which are reputable and have rigorous guidelines. Contrary to previous statements by Jasynnash2 the IMDb is reputable. Should you have a problem with that, feel free to challenge every celebrity/actor that refers to the IMDb as an external link on Wikipedia- and good luck! An article is also worthy of note if it fulfils the Wikipedia notibility requirements. Again, the external links confirm that. It is unknown why there are constant attempts to vandalise this article but such attempts are unmerited, malicious and unacceptable. Please see guidelines to being a Wikipedia user. For now, please view the guidelines below regardfing notability. Then feel free to re-read this article and you will find it complies with Wikipedia guidelines.
User:emotionboy|emotionboy]] (
Talk) 18:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)reply
If a topic has received significant coverage in
reliable sources that are
independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable.
"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and
no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.[1]
"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow
verifiable evaluation of notability, per
the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass
published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.[2]
"Sources,"[3] defined on Wikipedia as
secondary sources, provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred.[4]
"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising,
self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.[5]
"Presumed" means that substantive coverage
in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not suitable for inclusion. For example, it may violate
what Wikipedia is not.[6]
A topic for which this criterion is deemed to have been met by consensus, is usually worthy of notice, and satisfies one of the criteria for a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia. Verifiable facts and content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for inclusion within another article.
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.
^Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on
IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of
Bill Clinton (Martin Walker (1992-01-06).
"Tough love child of Kennedy". The Guardian.) is plainly trivial.
^Self-promotion, autobiography, and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. The published works should be someone else writing independently about the topic. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it. Otherwise, someone could give their own topic as much notability as they want by simply expounding on it outside of Wikipedia, which would defeat the purpose of the concept. Also, neutral sources should exist in order to guarantee a
neutral article can be written — self-promotion is not neutral (obviously), and self-published sources often are biased if even unintentionally: see
Wikipedia:Autobiography and
Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for discussion of neutrality concerns of such sources. Even non-promotional self-published sources, in the rare cases they may exist, are still not evidence of notability as they do not measure the attention a subject has received by the world at large.
^Including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, scientific journals, etc. In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article.
^Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. Mere republications of a single source or news wire service do not always constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing articles in the same geographic region about an occurrence, does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Specifically, several journals publishing the same article within the same geographic region from a news wire service is not a multiplicity of works.
^Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of interest by the world at large. See also:
Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for handling of such situations.
^Moreover, not all coverage in
reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as
reliable sources.