Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buddy Handleson

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Buddy Handleson

[edit]
Buddy Handleson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet the GNG, having not had coverage in multiple reliable sources. One article has been published about him but it was in a local newspaper which is not sufficient in my opinion. Also fails WP:NACTOR. (Also likely created as by a paid editor, based on other contributions). SmartSE (talk) 18:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I created the bio page for Buddy Handleson. There are a few sentences regarding the start of his career that are only referenced in one article, but the bulk of his resume is corroborated on IMDb and TV.com, as well as literally dozens of entertainment sites, so I felt there was enough verifiable information to start the page for him. I've seen bio pages for other actors with less references provided than this one, so I'm assuming this page has been flagged because he isn't considered "famous" enough. While he began his career with "guest-starring" roles, he has had recurring roles on 2 series - one of which is the very popular new Disney channel series Shake It Up!, currently on the air and viewed by millions each week. He has had a prominent role in 2 episodes so far and is scheduled to appear in more episodes this season, as well as several new projects scheduled for release in 2011 so I think that qualifies him as gaining enough notoriety that more and more people will be looking for information about him. And for the record - I am NOT a "paid editor". I have created/contributed to several pages for the actors and crew of the show Shake It Up! because I'm a FAN of the show, and I've added information where I've seen very little or no information provided on Wikipedia when I've searched out of my own curiosity about the cast/crew. Crakkerjakk (talk) 22:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: According to IMDB he's appeared in three eps to date, which doesn't remotely approach the criteria of NACTOR. The other recurring gig upon which the author hangs notability was two eps. That he may have more work coming is irrelevant per WP:CRYSTAL. As far as any other actors with shakier claims to notability go, I cheerfully urge Crakkerjakk to nominate any which stick out in the mind for deletion as well.  Ravenswing  22:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, he's only had recurring roles on 2 series so far, but I've seen the episodes and he didn't just have one or two lines - he had a large pivotal role in the story. He appeared in 2 episodes of Sons of Tucson (seen by roughly 3-4 million viewers each week). and he is listed in 3 episodes of Shake It Up! so far (seen by roughly 4-5 million viewers each week). He has also had large roles as a "guest star" on other shows, where he was a central character on the episode (medical shows like Trauma have a victim-of-the-week format, so it's always a rotating "guest star" cast), but he was not "recurring". I cheerfully urge Ravenswing to read my post again and see that I said I've seen bio pages for actors with less REFERENCES cited - I didn't say anything about their NOTABILITY. Bottom line - if appearing in prominent recurring and non-recurring roles on multiple shows seen by approximately 20-30 million viewers isn't considered "notable" enough for a bio page then go ahead and delete it. I've already copied/saved the work I did on the page, so I can recreate it again without any hassle when the projects he's already completed (including the feature film Coming & Going, as well as the Disney Channel animated series Doc McStuffins for which he's already completed his work for the entire first season) are released. Crakkerjakk (talk) 00:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TOOSOON. While yes, his work can be verified, his career as as yet too short and his coverage is too lacking. When he does more and receives some coverage for it, this article might be recreated. And to User:Crakkerjakk... rememeber, Wikipedia is not a fan site. We need a bit more. Please read WP:BIO and WP:TOOSOON. Regards, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your little briefing, but I know what Wikipedia is. I didn't create a "fan" page fawning over how "wonderful" he is. I created a FACTUAL account of his life and career from the sources I found. I explained I was a fan of the show Shake It Up simply as a reply to the accusation that I was a "paid editor". What other possible reason do you think people come to Wikipedia to read about stars? Does anyone here think anyone comes to Wikipedia to look up an actor, not to mention CREATE a page about them, who is NOT a fan of the star or their work? Give me a break. I already explained that I came to Wikipedia to look for information about the show. When I saw there wasn't a Buddy Handleson page I contributed what information I could. As I've said - he wasn't just a "day player" who had one or two lines, he has had prominent roles in the multiple shows he's appeared in, so it never occurred to me that he wasn't "famous" enough, but if that's not "notable" enough for people here (who I'm guessing haven't seen a single thing he's done to know what they're talking about), then go ahead and delete the page. I'm not interested in "selling" his fame to you. I'm now beginning to understand why there are so many half-@$$ed articles here on Wikipedia - anybody stupid enough to make an honest effort to create/contribute well-sourced, well-written pages are chased off, so that only the bottom-of-the-barrel contributors are left. From now on I'll take my work and give it to IMDb, TV.com, and plenty of other sites where it'll be appreciated, and I won't have to put up with being accused of "paid editing", or being talked down to as a little "fan" who needs Wikipedia explained to me. Crakkerjakk (talk) 17:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry. I did not intend to offend your sensibilities. And yes, readers look to Wikipedia for information... but the inclusion requirements per WP:BLP require a little bit more that this article currently offers. Yes.. he was "Boy" in one Hanna Montana episode in 2009. He was "Lost boy Jonah" in one Masquerade episode in 2009. He was "Timmy" in one Til Death episode in 2010. And then as his brief career began to grow a bit as he was "Gabe" in 2 episodes of Sons of Tucson in 2010 and then "Henry" in 3 episodes of Shake it up! in 2010. He won "some awards" at 7 in a "modeling showcase" in Orlando[1] as reported in Danville Express... but that single article is the only one which speaks about him in any depth. He may be more in the future, but currently it is simply not enough at this time. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:34, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Being in multiple episodes of two different notable series, sounds notable to me. Millions of people see the kid acting, and will be looking for an article on him. In the short time this article's been around, its gotten over two thousand views. [2] If other articles linked to it, it'd probably get more than that. Dream Focus 07:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I wasn't clear enough, check the guideline page. WP:NACTOR
  1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.
  2. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
  • Dream, he may merit inclusion in a few years, but as BLPs go, this one suffers from lack of reliable sources. We do have just one RS in the Danville Express article, but the rest of the sources are problematic. We have two that are not independent,[3][4] and one that is not seen as reliable for sourcing notability.[5] And I looked. Everything else available online are simply mentions in a list, or networking sites. forums or blogs.[6] Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:34, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As far as the first one goes? A couple guest star stints? That's "significant roles?" As far as the second? For FIVE EPs as a guest star? That's sufficient to create a "large fan base" or a "significant cult following?" Is this a joke?  Ravenswing  20:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a "joke". I think this is something that should be looked at through the prism of the Disney "machine". Shake It Up has only aired 8 episodes so far, but Disney reruns several episodes of the show on a DAILY basis (with the rare exceptions like tomorrow's special Christmas programming) - which means episodes where Handleson appears are airing roughly every 2 to 3 days. He may not be well known to the average adult, but ask any 7-14 year old girl with cable (or their parents) about the show, and I would bet at LEAST half of them know about the show, and of those, most have seen at least ONE episode he was in. 14 year old girls don't write for news websites and/or newspaper sources, so it's not the kind of thing that can be measured by how many articles can be found about him, but they DO go online looking for information (as Dream Focus pointed out - 3000 hits on his Wikipedia page in just 10 days, and I would bet 90% of that is kids under the age of 16). Again, I understand the definition of "notability" means different things to different people, so I don't have any problem with the page being deleted if it's decided that it's really a burden to Wikipedia, but I'm just pointing out that "notability" to the average 30-40 year old is really irrelevant to the Disney Channel's target audience. Crakkerjakk (talk) 19:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And just one follow-up question } If 300 hits a day - which roughly breaks down to someone going to the page every 5 minutes (more often than that actually) - doesn't meet the Wikipedia "notability" standard, then exactly how many hits does it take? Once every 2 minutes? Every minute? I'm not being sarcastic, I'd actually like to know. Crakkerjakk (talk) 02:10, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough; I'll address your general point. There's a widespread misunderstanding as to what "notable" means in terms of Wikipedia guidelines. A number of editors, and the overwhelming number of laymen, seem to feel that what we're discussing is whether a subject is important or not ... and were that the case, of course, then questions as to how many hits an article gets and other such points of opinion ought to matter. It isn't the case. "Notable" means whether or not the subject meets the pertinent notability criteria, period. That's all we can judge. You'll see, of course, that nowhere in any standard is the number of hits an article achieves a day part of the criteria ... and probably just as well for your premise that Handleson is all that prominent, given that the starring regulars run anywhere from ten to twenty times as many page views in the same past ten days, and the show's article has fifty times as many hits since the Handleson article was created. For the only criteria we are allowed to measure, consensus has generally held "significant roles" to either reflect starring roles or a large body of character actor work across many productions, and to base a "cult following" around reliable sources strong enough to meet the GNG in its own right. In his mere handful of screen appearances to date, Handleson does not come close.  Ravenswing  03:07, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice try, but actually the number of hits his page has gotten makes my point PERFECTLY. Yes, the show's main page and other REGULAR stars on the show have had more hits than him (obviously), but they ALL get more hits than countless other "notable" actors (including Buddy who, with the "mere handful" of projects he's appeared in, gets roughly 10X as many hits as numerous Emmy award winners). Of course I'm not saying that Emmy award winners should be deleted, but it makes exactly my point that "notability" among 13 year old girls cannot be measured by how much he's reported on by "news" sources controlled by middle-aged men. I don't know how you arrived at your interpretation of the criteria, but the first criteria for WP:NACTOR as it's written is > "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, OR other productions.". Granted, that leaves a lot of room for interpretation, so I can understand how different people can read it differently, but in my opinion when I created the page, he fit that criteria - unless the standard is that an actor must meet ALL THREE criteria listed, in which case there are literally THOUSANDS of Wikipedia pages about actors that need to be deleted. Crakkerjakk (talk) 05:23, 25 December 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Buddy_Handleson&oldid=1080150045"