Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randy Cooper (Model maker)

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2025 June 23.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. The discussion has been derailed with bludgeoning and personal attacks, but I see a general agreement that there is insufficient quality sourcing to write an article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:31, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Cooper (Model maker)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:GNG no significant coverage, beyond listings and credits. Declined 5 times at WP:AFC but moved to mainspace repeatedly by User:Orlando Davis who states “ I don't agree with notability tags. The subject may take it personally. Deletion makes more sense, or leave it alone.” so here we are. Theroadislong (talk) 15:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Film, and Visual arts. Theroadislong (talk) 15:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Fine-Scale Modeler, The Evening Independent, and Bay News 9 are all highly reliable and independent. The film credits and interview articles should be noted. Significant changes have been made after each time it was turned down. Orlando Davis (talk) 16:14, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With niche sourcing like Fine-Scale Modeler, one good way to establish it as a RS is to show where the source is seen as a RS by other RS, particularly academic/scholarly sources. Offhand I see it used listed in a further reading section in this CRC Press book and a note in this Taylor & Francis. I wasn't able to find much more. The magazine was owned by Kalmbach Media but was sold to Firecrown Media last year. It looks like this is probably usable, but I'd recommend running it through WP:RS/N to be certain.

As far as interviews go, those are seen as primary sources regardless of where they're posted unless they're written in prose. The standard interview format is pretty much just question and answer, without any sort of accompanying article. As such, they almost always have little to no editorial oversight or fact-checking beyond formatting and spell-check. This is a very widely held stance on Wikipedia and is unlikely to ever change.

Now, when it comes to film credits the issue here is that notability is WP:NOTINHERITED by the person working on a notable production or with notable people. The reason for this is that there can be hundreds to even thousands of people working on a film. According to this, over 3,000 people worked on Iron Man 3, so just working on a notable film isn't enough to establish notability - you need coverage in independent and reliable sources that specific highlight the person in question. So if there was a RS review that stated "Randy Cooper's work on IM2 was fantastic", that would count. However with his work being so specific, it's unlikely that he would be highlighted over say, the person or company who was overall in charge of VFX.

Finally, I guess I'd be remiss if I didn't say that local coverage tends to be kind of seen as routine on Wikipedia as local outlets are more likely to cover a local person. So in this case what you will need to do is help establish how this coverage should be seen as more than just local, routine coverage. Viewership/circulation numbers are a great way of doing this. So for example, a local paper with a fairly low readership would be seen as kind of routine whereas say, an article in a major, well circulated paper would be seen as a much stronger source. Now to be fair, there's nothing official saying that local coverage can't be used, but it is typically seen as a weaker source and shouldn't be doing the heavy lifting in an AfD discussion. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:55, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response.

Bay News has a very high viewership (1.76 Million), (source 11). Charter Communications

The Evening Independent was a major newspaper in the Tampa Bay area and was merged as the Tampa Bay Times in 1986, which has a circulation of over 100k not including the more widely read digital edition. 1)Times Publishing Company 2) Tampa Bay Times Orlando Davis (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fine Scale Modeler magazine is ok for sourcing, the rest either aren't online, trivial mentions or primary sources. I can't pull anything up. Just not enough sourcing for wikipedia. Oaktree b (talk) 19:41, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We have two solid sources so far: Fine Scale Modeler and the Evening Independent. Also, we should be able to use the five interviews due to the Ignore-all-rules rule since it is an article that is obviously notable, and the rules are getting in the way. Interviews by the hobby magazines Sci-Fi-Modeler., Psycho Moya Styrene, the YouTube channels Richard Cleveland (Amazing Plastic), Adam Savage’s Tested (A YouTube channel with almost 7 million subscribers and the public television Bay news, with a viewership of 1.76 million make Randy notable, and the Ignore All Rules rule was put in place for situations like this when the rules get in the way of an obviously notable article. He built many models that were used for major films such as Starship Troopers, Iron Man 2, Stargate, Spider-Man 2, and many others. Just looking at his older models, it's obvious that the style of spaceships he created was used for Starship Troopers, a major movie!

And what's the difference between an interview and an article in this case? For this article, the part that matters for notability is that he is significant enough to be written about and interviewed by various significant sources. Orlando Davis (talk) 11:26, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b "aren't online"? You know better than to require online sources... Toadspike [Talk] 07:04, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying I can't verify them, so I can't say how extensive they are. Oaktree b (talk) 15:17, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Orlando Davis and the extent of the sources. Meets GNG and highlights the career of one of the notable science fiction model designers. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:11, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 06:01, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sci-fi & Fantasy Modeller, and Fine Scale Modeler are credible sources where he is the interview subject. Agnieszka653 (talk) 14:31, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews are usually considered primary sources, and additionally might not have sufficient independent content. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:56, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For discussion on independent sourcing that speaks to notability guidelines.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:11, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote something similar earlier in the conversation. By now, people may not be reading what I wrote, so I'm writing again. Because of the ignore all rules rule that was made to make sure that articles that are obviously notable are not deleted because of rules, I think that voters should think about whether they believe this article is notable rather than about policy. As I said earlier, why would non interview sources be any more credible than interview in this case? Many credible sources found him notable enough to write about. Thank you. Orlando Davis (talk) 15:32, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please be mindful of bludgeoning or you will lose access to edit this discussion. That's your opinion to which you're entitled, but it does not overrule consensus which is what you have consistently been trying to do. Star Mississippi 02:00, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? The consensus so far is to keep. Are you trying to divert from a consensus you don't like by accusing me of bludgeoning? "To falsely accuse someone of bludgeoning is considered uncivil, and should be avoided. Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process. I don't like being lawyered. Orlando Davis (talk) 03:16, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could write a longer statement about how IAR, while being a good reason to be bold, is not a free pass to ignore broader consensus whenever one wishes to or how the common sense of "noteworthiness" or "celebrity" is not actually what is meant by the guideline we've unfortunately titled Wikipedia:Notability (the former more commonly considered under WP:SIGNIFICANCE), and instead we mean "can we write an article meeting the core content policies" (q.v. WP:WHYN).
I'm not sure how much that would actually help though, so I'll — while acknowledging the fact that we have discretion to bend even the core content policies (barring WP:NPOV) given a Very Good Reason — simply opine that editors have failed to establish the no doubt Very Obvious Very Good Reason we should be measuring the Obvious Notability by something other than the usual standard, which does in fact require sources to be independent of the subject, among the other requirements (direct and in-depth, reliable, secondary). Given that, in my opinion, we lack both the Very Good Reason or the sources that can meet the usual standard, I see no other option. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:06, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't need IAR, it meets GNG ("...now I know my ABC's") Randy Kryn (talk) 16:00, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am convinced by above explanation and nomination statement. Notability has not been shown by the participants in this discussion. Historyexpert2 (talk) 18:28, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not a deletion worthy offense but the article also should have been declined at AFC for tone as well, it doesn't read like an encyclopaedia entry. Now for the real meat and potatoes, I am not seeing sources that meat [;)] the requirements for Notability as Alpha has explained above, emphasis on secondary. I tried looking his name up in conjunction with different movies that he worked on or even the models that he sells but I couldn't find anything. (Unfortunately?) As a species we usually value the person that put the design on paper more than the person that puts that same design into the real world and this seems to be a similar case. Moritoriko (talk) 00:10, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your last sentence sounds like whataboutism. Orlando Davis (talk) 01:31, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ENGVAR, wikt:encyclopaedia. Alpha3031 (t • c) 01:33, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My bad. I caught my own mistake, but you saw it first. However, there are so many bad articles on Wikipedia. This is a decent one. Why waste time when there is so much to do? Orlando Davis (talk) 01:51, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you didn't understand my last sentence. What it means is that we have an article about Sagrada Familia and about the designer Antoni Gaudí (the person that put the design on paper) but most of the stonemasons who have carved the intricate detail (the people that put the design into the real world) haven't received coverage for them to meet GNG.

Looking up the movies he worked on, the large pieces that receive coverage (DeLorean time machine for example) seem to be designed by someone else and Cooper just worked to make the design a reality. Moritoriko (talk) 04:02, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Often, model makers are respected for their craftsmanship, and it doesn't matter that they don't design. The talent is in the handwork. For example, model makers of ships and aircraft. Norman a Ough didn't design the ships he made for movies. However, Randy Cooper has designed his own work. Also, there is the fact that the modeler's unique style in the models makes the models uniquely his own, even if he follows a design. Anyway, what matters is what Randy Kryn said: the article passes GNG. Orlando Davis (talk) 04:35, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not a deletion worthy offense but the article also should have been declined at AFC for tone as well, it doesn't read like an encyclopaedia entry. it was declined multiple times, but the editor is not required to follow AfC recommendations so we ended up here. Star Mississippi 01:49, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reason it was declined so many times is that many reviewers tend to have a deletionist bias and often don't even read the articles that they turn down. They assumed that no changes had been made when changes had been made. Several other experienced editors on this forum believe it is a worthy article. Orlando Davis (talk) 01:58, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it is encyclopedic; editors often get that confused. You can say positive things about a subject if credible sources have said those things. Reviewers are not necessarily experts. Some have less experience than I do. Orlando Davis (talk) 02:08, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some parts that I considered when making that comment:
He considers himself "really lucky because a lot of people don't get a chance to do what they really want to do." (who cares?)

Cooper has said his favorite kits as a child were the Saturn V and the Apollo kits. (who cares?)

Having transitioned out of the film business,... (tone, He left the film industry)

I looked through the IMDb pages of Solar Crisis, Batman Returns, Spider-Man 2, and Iron Man 2, and he isn't mentioned at all. I'm really not sure what the claim of notability is supposed to be? He built some props for a couple movies and now designs his own model kits. Moritoriko (talk) 04:25, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You say who cares but that's how to write boring articles. Those are interesting facts that make it readable. Just because you don't care doesn't mean it's not encyclopedic. It seems to me like you're just making stuff up. We don't use IMDB on Wikipedia. (If it was up to me it would be ok) Stargate, Starship Troopers, and Bicentennial man are referenced on Metacritic. The rest by Sci-Fi Fantasy Modeller. The fact that he has articles and has been interviewed by so many credible sources means he is a notable model maker. Orlando Davis (talk) 05:08, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't remember the name of the guideline or link thing that I was thinking about when I said "who cares", but yes it was a bit crass. If anyone else reading this has an idea of what I meant to say, I'd welcome suggestions. I know we don't source from IMDb on Wikipedia, but what is important is that the 4 movies I mentioned are not the ones that you have sourced to Metacritic. In fact they are sourced to a source from 1979, more than 10 years before any of them came out. I don't see any comment about the last point but I found the hot link I wanted for it, WP:FORMAL. Moritoriko (talk) 05:46, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The date for the article was wrong. It is 2014. I just changed it. Thank you for pointing that out. If you want to change the article in the areas you pointed out, be bold and do it yourself. It is a trivial issue in my opinion. Orlando Davis (talk) 06:14, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How many articles have you written? 1? And you think you're ready to be involved in an AFD debate? Orlando Davis (talk) 05:16, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Restore to draft as a WP:ATD, to provide further opportunity for research and development. BD2412 T 01:41, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete owing to insufficient reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 07:08, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as notability is insufficiently established - per others here and the additional five AfC reviewers who rejected the draft on grounds of notability. I would not oppose returning it to draftspace for development if anyone thinks the issues can be addressed (the possible notability of his company has not been discussed, for example), but with restoration subject to WP:DRV. Dorsetonian (talk) 11:00, 23 June 2025 (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.