Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Mercer (actor)

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. Sandstein 08:21, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Mercer (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

First off, it is very difficult to find reliable sources for this subject, since looking up "Matt Mercer" on Google generates results on the far more notable Critical Role star Matthew Mercer, who is also known for his notable roles in anime and video games.

And when sources *were* found, they are just brief mentions of the subject, and barely any of them have significant depth. There is barely any coverage from credible news sources. So I'm convinced that the subject fails WP:SIGCOV.

Furthermore, the subject is largely involved with indie films or really, really low budget productions, many of which have barely any notability nor coverage to speak of, so I am not convinced that the subject meets WP:ENT, either.

On top of that, I also think this subject also does not meet WP:WHYN. Quoting the guideline:

We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list. From the same guideline:Because these requirements are based on major content policies, they apply to all articles, not solely articles justified under the general notability criteria. I'm not convinced that you could write very much for this subject due to the lack of sources.

PS: If you look into the subject's article history, you could see that the draft was declined several times, and that it is has never been approved by anyone. This means the reviewers never thought the subject meets our notability criteria to begin with. Sk8erPrince (talk) 15:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sk8erPrince (talk) 15:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:50, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:50, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:50, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep as he does have some leading roles in films that might be independent but do have multiple critics reviews at Rotten Tomatoes which means they are notable. His roles can be confirmed in those reviews, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:51, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But do those reviews talk about the subject, or the films themselves? From what I could see, it seems to be the latter with trivial to no mention of the subject; hence failing WP:SIGCOV. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 00:28, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not an easy subject to judge, but looking at the provided sources, two of them are 404 and the rest consist of mere mentions that fail WP:SIGCOV or interviews that also fail WP:RS and WP:IS. Movies where the subject stars in are low-budget productions and for the most part, barely pass WP:GNG on their own. Perhaps if more reliable sources were added to the article my opinion would change. — Centron   X   11:05, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for lack of evidence of notability; i.e. he's not famous and has not done anything particularly notable.Strandvue (talk) 00:24, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Looking at the article's sources, no WP:SIGCOV (sources are passing mentions, interviews) so doesn't pass WP:GNG. However WP:NACTOR says "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films". The subject has had a role in various films we have articles on. Of those, Beyond the Gates (film) and The Toybox look notable, in comparison with the others that do not. Any film we have an article on must by definition be notable, no? Are these two films notable enough, and did he play a leading role? -Lopifalko (talk) 14:17, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think The Toybox is a particularly notable film; plus, there is no in depth coverage of the subject for that production. Failing WP:SIGCOV means that the subject is not notable enough to have their own article. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 04:47, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on lack of WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:BASIC, including in The New York Times as highlighted by others, and the lack of notability of the B movie horror films required to satisfy WP:NACTOR. -Lopifalko (talk) 05:48, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. His performances in films have been reviewed two times in The New York Times (see here and here). If he's in leading roles in films being reviewed by major film critics he meets that criteria #1 of WP:NACTOR.4meter4 (talk) 01:47, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, Jason and the Golden Fleece isn't a film; it's a play. [1] Quoting the NY Times article:JASON AND THE GOLDEN FLEECE, a play by Arthur Perlman, based on Greek myth, presented by Theaterworks/USA at the Auditorium at the Equitable Tower, 787 Seventh Avenue, at 51st Street, Manhattan. Also, that NY Times article you linked only has a mere passing mention of the subject; that's not significant, in depth coverage. It talks more about the play itself than the subject. We also don't have an article of the play in question, so it's definitely not a notable theatre production.

So no, I would disagree on the claim that the subject meets WP:NACTOR. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 04:47, 25 October 2019 (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.