375:
fanbase among children. I've not really seen that many fans of him. If you can show that he has appeared in more than one notable production, then that definitely improves the case for his notability. But I would say that in the event it is determined he satisfies notability requirements (and it looks like he will), it won't be by much. Something just makes me feel that he isn't as notable as what you generally see on
Knowledge, though this isn't that relevant. I just get the feeling that notability and verifiability standards on Knowledge have become a little bit lax. While I now doubt this article will be deleted, I still support deletion. Also, a bit off topic, and not related to this AFD, but what does one do when an article that was proded and the prod expired but the article wasn't deleted do? And since this article was supposed to be deleted, why is it here? It's all a bit confusing for me. One idea floated around is that the article was deleted, and later recreated. Then somebody took the courtesy of confusing people by placing the old articles AFD on the new articles talk page. Still, I think that there simply isn't enough information on him at all. Virtually nothing other than a filmography can be made from reliable sources and like I said, I can't find much third party notability of him or most of his roles. But I'm seeing that his Little Bill role might be notable. I just never heard much about Little Bill, despite watching Nickelodeon quite a bit. Well, I'll still try to make my case for deletion, but if the article is considered notable enough, then I won't go against that.
271:
significant role, not significant roles. Two of his movie roles aren't notable. As for the Ant Bully, that movie is mentioned mostly it seems in lists or as an example in articles about something else totally. At least half the the Ant Bully article's references aren't even specifically about it. That seems to qualify the Ant Bully as an average film. These days, it seems films get article on
Knowledge without lots of third party notability. As for Little Bill and The Backyardigans, those are small shows that little kids like to watch. Average little kid shows. I ultimately fail to see the notability here. A role in a notable TV show, I admit, a role in a film, very minor roles in two films, and some roles in non notable TV shows. That seems to add up to one notable role and a few non notable roles, and the I also fail to see any article specifically about him. According to the notability guideline, multiple notable roles are needed. This kid seems to have one notable role. If this article does qualify as notable, it seems it barely does. I'll admit I'm no expert on Knowledge. Never have been. But in this instance, I think I know what I'm doing.
327:
have those shows received awards like Avatar? In my book, Avatar qualifies as very notable due to the number of news articles about it and some other things. I am not claiming that the shows are non notable because they are kids shows. I just don't see why they are notable. I don't need to prove they aren't notable if it can't be proven they are notable. Same goes for his fan base. Can you show he has a large enough one? If not, no need for me to show he doesn't have one. I also take offence at your suggestion that I am deliberately messing up
Knowledge. I've long felt this kid isn't notable enough. I just decided to do something now. I just don't think that every voice actor with a small handful of roles, with at most two notable ones, but probably one notable one, needs an article on Knowledge. If a role is automatically considered notable because it was a starring one, and I don't think this is the case, then I can name off the top of my head an actor who has starred in a few movies who doesn't have his own article on here. Tell me: What makes this kid notable enough? And as I said before, if he does pass, he
351:. The very first bullet states that they must have "had significant roles or been featured multiple times in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions." I think you and I could both agree that being the protagonist in a popular children's program is definitely notable. I'm basing his notability on the fact that among children he has a recognizable fan base. Fans of the show are obviously going to know the protagonist. And to answer your question, yes. Little Bill has won awards from many respectable parties (see
124:
which all say the same things, more or less. Also, this article appears to have been proded in the past. It expired but for some reason was never deleted. Also, this article was apparently nominated for deletion before but never deleted. I cannot think of what makes this guy notable or where to find information. An article is not needed for every actor out there. There are plenty of actors, probably some with more roles than him, that don't have articles on
Knowledge. So, yeah, those are my reasons for deleting this page.
374:
That certainly improves the case to some extent for Little Bill, and by extension his role in it, being notable. But I still think that news articles are needed. I mean third party sources that have actually written about the subject. Also, to be honest, it wasn't my understanding that he had a large
326:
Well, one of the possible criteria specifically said a large fan base. So I simply used those words. Do tell me what makes every TV show in existence notable. If you feel Little Bill is notable, please explain. Same goes for The
Backyardigans. Yes, it would make me happy to see some sources. I mean,
270:
I'll cover each of those 3 points. For the last one, it is easy enough to see that he isn't a unique actor. For the 2nd one, he doesn't seem to have a very large fanbase. For the first one, I fail to see the significant roles he has had. You might consider his role as Aang significant. But that is a
422:
I wasn't paying any attention to this article back then. I must have misinterpreted what I saw. I think somebody might have objected without my noticing. Yeah, that's it. But back on topic, my case for deletion rests above. Your case for keeping is also above. I think we'd best get back to debating
123:
Let's see, where to begin. First of, this is a non notable voice actor. A handful of non notable roles and one or two notable ones, but that's it. Also, I can find virtually no reliable third party sources with any information on this person. Just your average media sites like IMDB, TV.com, etc.,
389:
Eh, prod'ding something doesn't necessarily mean it'll be deleted. I'm assuming your talking about the
February 2007 prod'ding of the article. If the tag is on there for five days and no one objects (an objection usually is just someone removing the tag, which was the case) then the article is
443:
116:
347:
First of all, let me apologize if I came off giving the notion that you're "messing up
Knowledge." Wasn't my intention. Secondly, like I said before at
146:. I'd think being the main protagonist in a popular children's program on a popular children's station is notable. Same thing goes with the show
406:
363:
313:
158:
83:
78:
87:
458:
432:
412:
384:
369:
340:
319:
280:
265:
247:
216:
187:
164:
133:
70:
52:
305:) doesn't mean they aren't. I'm in full support of every keep here, and if it will make you happy, I'll find you some sources.
17:
285:
So you're claiming that because his other notable shows are kids shows that they're not notable...? Why is this?
196:
477:
172:- voice of the main character in an extremely popular series. I believe it's notable, and WP:Bio seems to agree.
36:
476:
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
428:
380:
336:
276:
129:
211:
180:
255:
With the one primary role, and multiple secondary roles, he seems to meet the criteria for entertainers.
454:
424:
376:
348:
332:
272:
225:
200:
150:. The article does have bare references, though... so we'd definitely have to find some other sources.
125:
74:
49:
173:
301:. Again, just because you don't watch them/think they're popular (eerily similar to something like
256:
352:
298:
205:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
450:
66:
58:
302:
395:
294:
143:
231:
104:
286:
147:
290:
394:
is taken up at an AfD discussion, but that wasn't the case here. See
293:). Saying that he doesn't have a large fan base could be considered
470:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
289:
is a show that ran for five years on
Nikelodeon (specifically
444:
list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions
111:
100:
96:
92:
398:
for more info. No hard feelings from before, right?
297:, as it's a generalization. Same thing goes with
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
480:). No further edits should be made to this page.
199:role alone fulfills the first bullet point of
8:
423:about whether he is notable enough or not.
442:: This debate has been included in the
7:
203:; really can't speak for the rest.
24:
390:deleted. If someone objects, it
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
497:
197:Avatar: The Last Airbender
473:Please do not modify it.
459:00:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
433:19:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
413:04:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
385:04:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
370:04:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
341:03:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
320:02:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
281:00:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
266:17:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
248:15:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
217:14:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
188:12:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
165:08:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
134:06:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
53:22:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
144:WP:BIO#Entertainers
224:- Clearly fulfils
44:The result was
461:
447:
299:The Backyardigans
263:
488:
475:
448:
438:
261:
259:
258:Ten Pound Hammer
245:
243:
240:
237:
234:
214:
208:
184:
178:
114:
108:
90:
67:Zach Tyler Eisen
59:Zach Tyler Eisen
34:
496:
495:
491:
490:
489:
487:
486:
485:
484:
478:deletion review
471:
409:
400:phøenixMøurning
366:
357:phøenixMøurning
316:
307:phøenixMøurning
257:
241:
238:
235:
232:
230:
212:
206:
182:
176:Canterbury Tail
174:
161:
152:phøenixMøurning
110:
81:
65:
62:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
494:
492:
483:
482:
465:
463:
462:
420:
419:
418:
417:
416:
415:
405:
362:
349:WP:ENTERTAINER
344:
343:
324:
323:
322:
312:
268:
262:and his otters
250:
226:WP:ENTERTAINER
219:
201:WP:ENTERTAINER
190:
167:
157:
121:
120:
61:
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
493:
481:
479:
474:
468:
467:
466:
460:
456:
452:
445:
441:
437:
436:
435:
434:
430:
426:
425:SkepticBanner
414:
410:
408:
401:
397:
393:
388:
387:
386:
382:
378:
377:SkepticBanner
373:
372:
371:
367:
365:
358:
354:
350:
346:
345:
342:
338:
334:
333:SkepticBanner
330:
325:
321:
317:
315:
308:
304:
300:
296:
292:
288:
284:
283:
282:
278:
274:
273:SkepticBanner
269:
267:
260:
254:
251:
249:
246:
244:
227:
223:
220:
218:
215:
210:
209:
202:
198:
194:
191:
189:
186:
185:
179:
177:
171:
168:
166:
162:
160:
153:
149:
145:
141:
138:
137:
136:
135:
131:
127:
126:SkepticBanner
118:
113:
106:
102:
98:
94:
89:
85:
80:
76:
72:
68:
64:
63:
60:
57:
55:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
472:
469:
464:
439:
421:
403:
399:
391:
360:
356:
328:
310:
306:
295:weasle words
252:
229:
221:
207:Anturiaethwr
204:
195:I think the
192:
181:
175:
169:
155:
151:
139:
122:
45:
43:
31:
28:
451:Fabrictramp
287:Little Bill
222:Strong keep
148:Little Bill
50:Flowerparty
392:sometimes
407:contribs
364:contribs
314:contribs
303:WP:POINT
291:Nick Jr.
159:contribs
117:View log
396:WP:PROD
331:does.
84:protect
79:history
329:barely
112:delete
88:delete
193:Keep.
115:) – (
105:views
97:watch
93:links
16:<
455:talk
440:Note
429:talk
381:talk
355:).
353:here
337:talk
277:talk
253:Keep
242:nine
213:Talk
183:talk
170:Keep
142:per
140:Keep
130:talk
101:logs
75:talk
71:edit
46:keep
449:--
446:.
264:•
457:)
431:)
411:)
402:(
383:)
368:)
359:(
339:)
318:)
309:(
279:)
228:.
163:)
154:(
132:)
103:|
99:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
77:|
73:|
48:.
453:(
427:(
404:/
379:(
361:/
335:(
311:/
275:(
239:e
236:s
233:a
156:/
128:(
119:)
109:(
107:)
69:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.