382:- I'm not suggesting that we wait until he has more credits or is more famous, I'm just thinking that no one has yet looked for additional sources. The fact that he's a contract player on a series (rather than a guest star, etc) increases the likelihood of something existing. I have someone who amasses recent soap magazines, I'll ask there, and as the series has just established that the character is the child of notables, I expect further coverage. Obviously an AfD is a good way to ignite efforts to improve an article, I just hate to have article deleted quickly before possible avenues are explored.—
295:- I cleaned up the article and made a 1st pass at adding references; he's a contract player on a notable American series, that should count for something. It's a relatively new stub, perhaps we can give it some time to develop? And not that the actor's notability can necessarily be asserted by the role, but the character himself has been recently established as the only son of two notable/famous characters from the series (I commented as much in that AfD).—
574:- Several independent sources cover information on the actor including both soap opera press and mainstream entertainment press. Contrary to what Ironholds said above, the actor interviews from the magazines give information on the actor as well as the character, such as where Parsons was born, raised, and schooled, and what film roles he held. All of which is covered in the article.
430:
that's currently on the newsstands (June 2, 2009), and I've cited it in the article. Which was my point. I didn't create the article, I'm not a fan of the guy, and I don't know that the article will end up meeting the criteria of WP:ENT, but I find it exasperating when articles get rushed to deletion
325:
The newly added references do not add significantly to the claim of notability. There is a biography on the website of his employer; which cannot be used to establish notability since it is not independent. There is an IMDB entry which amounts to nothing more than a bullet list of jobs held. There
150:
There does not appear to be any independent sources which cover this person in a substantive manner. A few sources list the jobs he has held, but that does not supply the depth of coverage required by the inclusion criteria at
311:: Those references hardly amount to the "significant coverage" required, IMHO. Why should a "contract player on a notable American series" count for something? Should he get a free pass on the notability requirements? –
395:
You seem to be misunderstanding the nature of notability on
Knowledge (XXG). If you pull in 200 soap magazines discussing the character in great detail they're worth squat - why? Because they cover the
269:
476:
431:
and editors like yourself get red in the face when challenged. We found several references in one day, it seems counterproductive to slash and burn now and ask questions later.—
400:. It doesn't matter if it's the most important character to be seen in shitty soaps for over a decade, this is an article on the actor and it is direct coverage of the actor
444:
Likewise, we don't create articles for people hoping that someday sources will be found. After the sources are found, feel free to use them to recreate the article... --
121:
522:
atfter nomination. As a recurring (45+ episodes) character on a soap opera which itself has an incredible fan base and cult following (no, I don't watch it), I can
243:
619:, the consensus based on a !vote-count would be to delete the article, but there were several improvements during the AFD, which it would be unfair to ignore.
562:- several references and some info asserting notability were added after May 27, 2009 (when the initial "Deletes" were recorded), so ... —
88:
83:
17:
92:
53:
75:
455:
345:
166:
720:
36:
404:
the actor that counts. Soap magazines are very good for articles on the character, but not for articles on the actor.
49:
547:
523:
719:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
654:
359:
641:
624:
603:
422:
I do understand WP:N, and I don't quite get your snarky attitude ... there's actually an interview with the
705:
686:
671:
645:
628:
607:
583:
566:
552:
510:
488:
460:
435:
413:
386:
374:
350:
320:
299:
284:
255:
230:
198:
171:
141:
57:
506:
280:
531:
214:, which article seems to be getting a free ride on the theory that all characters in this soap opera are
637:
535:
700:
666:
540:
484:
369:
225:
409:
137:
79:
616:
449:
339:
160:
579:
502:
316:
276:
251:
194:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
527:
498:
182:
129:
692:
658:
480:
363:
330:
coverage. If there is nothing more than those three, I can see no way this article meets
219:
326:
is a short interview with Soaps.com, which is about 10 lines long. I wouldn't call this
186:
405:
133:
71:
63:
331:
152:
683:
563:
519:
445:
432:
383:
335:
296:
156:
575:
312:
247:
211:
190:
109:
615:
While I am aware that relisting in these circumstances is outwith the process at
620:
599:
691:
LOL. Good. The fewer poor-quality articles on non-notable people, the better.
593:
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
530:. Time to start digging through the soap opera digests. That they are
713:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
678:
LOL, if we followed that one to the letter we would lose a
270:
list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions
636:
per expansion. Significant role on notable soap opera.
116:
105:
101:
97:
526:
in good faith that he has the notability required per
358:-- "time to develop" sounds like another variation on
598:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
477:list of Living people-related deletion discussions
244:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Ethan Lovett
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
723:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
206:- non-notable entertainer. Note that there
264:
268:: This debate has been included in the
657:which requires multiple notable roles.
475:: This debate has been included in the
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
242:: I just sent that one to Afd too:
24:
210:an article about his character,
1:
185:, no significant coverage in
682:of articles. Come on now.—
740:
58:23:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
716:Please do not modify it.
706:18:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
687:16:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
672:19:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
646:18:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
629:08:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
608:08:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
584:04:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
567:04:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
553:00:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
511:00:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
489:00:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
461:22:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
436:09:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
414:21:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
387:21:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
375:21:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
351:20:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
321:19:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
300:19:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
285:19:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
256:18:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
231:17:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
199:17:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
172:16:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
142:16:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
50:Backslash Forwardslash
518:per improvements by
44:The result was
610:
491:
458:
452:
428:Soap Opera Digest
348:
342:
287:
273:
169:
163:
731:
718:
703:
698:
669:
664:
597:
595:
543:
532:not included yet
471:
456:
450:
372:
366:
346:
340:
274:
228:
222:
187:reliable sources
167:
161:
119:
113:
95:
34:
739:
738:
734:
733:
732:
730:
729:
728:
727:
721:deletion review
714:
701:
693:
667:
659:
591:
541:
370:
364:
334:standards... --
226:
220:
115:
86:
70:
67:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
737:
735:
726:
725:
710:
709:
708:
675:
674:
655:WP:ENTERTAINER
648:
631:
612:
611:
596:
588:
587:
586:
569:
556:
555:
513:
492:
468:
467:
466:
465:
464:
463:
441:
440:
439:
438:
417:
416:
390:
389:
377:
360:WP:UPANDCOMING
353:
323:
303:
302:
289:
288:
261:
260:
259:
258:
234:
233:
201:
181:Clearly fails
175:
174:
126:
125:
72:Nathan Parsons
66:
64:Nathan Parsons
61:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
736:
724:
722:
717:
711:
707:
704:
699:
696:
690:
689:
688:
685:
681:
677:
676:
673:
670:
665:
662:
656:
652:
649:
647:
643:
639:
638:Granite thump
635:
632:
630:
626:
622:
618:
614:
613:
609:
605:
601:
594:
590:
589:
585:
581:
577:
573:
570:
568:
565:
561:
558:
557:
554:
551:
550:
549:
545:
544:
537:
533:
529:
525:
521:
520:User:TAnthony
517:
514:
512:
508:
504:
500:
496:
493:
490:
486:
482:
478:
474:
470:
469:
462:
459:
453:
447:
443:
442:
437:
434:
429:
425:
421:
420:
419:
418:
415:
411:
407:
403:
399:
394:
393:
392:
391:
388:
385:
381:
378:
376:
373:
367:
361:
357:
354:
352:
349:
343:
337:
333:
329:
324:
322:
318:
314:
310:
307:
306:
305:
304:
301:
298:
294:
291:
290:
286:
282:
278:
271:
267:
263:
262:
257:
253:
249:
245:
241:
238:
237:
236:
235:
232:
229:
223:
217:
213:
209:
205:
202:
200:
196:
192:
188:
184:
180:
177:
176:
173:
170:
164:
158:
154:
149:
146:
145:
144:
143:
139:
135:
131:
123:
118:
111:
107:
103:
99:
94:
90:
85:
81:
77:
73:
69:
68:
65:
62:
60:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
715:
712:
694:
679:
660:
650:
633:
592:
571:
559:
548:
546:
539:
515:
503:Bigdaddy1981
494:
472:
427:
423:
401:
397:
379:
355:
327:
308:
292:
277:TexasAndroid
265:
239:
215:
212:Ethan Lovett
207:
203:
178:
147:
127:
45:
43:
31:
28:
538:to delete.
365:Orange Mike
328:substantial
221:Orange Mike
218:notable! --
216:prima facie
481:Erwin85Bot
617:WP:RELIST
536:no reason
497:-- fails
406:Ironholds
398:character
134:Ironholds
684:TAnthony
653:. Fails
564:TAnthony
542:Schmidt,
457:contribs
446:Jayron32
433:TAnthony
384:TAnthony
347:contribs
336:Jayron32
297:TAnthony
168:contribs
157:Jayron32
122:View log
576:Rocksey
560:Comment
426:in the
380:Comment
356:comment
313:ukexpat
309:Comment
248:ukexpat
240:Comment
191:ukexpat
89:protect
84:history
651:Delete
621:Stifle
600:Stifle
528:WP:GNG
524:accept
499:WP:ENT
495:Delete
204:Delete
183:WP:ENT
179:Delete
148:Delete
130:WP:ENT
128:fails
117:delete
93:delete
46:delete
702:vecia
668:vecia
424:actor
155:. --
120:) – (
110:views
102:watch
98:links
16:<
697:enna
663:enna
642:talk
634:Keep
625:talk
604:talk
580:talk
572:Keep
516:Keep
507:talk
485:talk
479:. --
473:Note
451:talk
410:talk
371:Talk
362:. --
341:talk
332:WP:N
317:talk
293:Keep
281:talk
266:Note
252:talk
246:. –
227:Talk
195:talk
162:talk
153:WP:N
138:talk
106:logs
80:talk
76:edit
54:talk
48:. \
680:lot
534:is
368:|
224:|
52:/ {
644:)
627:)
606:)
582:)
509:)
501:.
487:)
412:)
402:as
319:)
283:)
272:.
254:)
208:is
197:)
189:.
140:)
132:.
108:|
104:|
100:|
96:|
91:|
87:|
82:|
78:|
56:}
695:ل
661:ل
640:(
623:(
602:(
578:(
505:(
483:(
454:.
448:.
408:(
344:.
338:.
315:(
279:(
275:—
250:(
193:(
165:.
159:.
136:(
124:)
114:(
112:)
74:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.