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. BD2412 T 20:52, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Garrett Coffey[edit]

[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)

Non notable actor falling short of WP:GNG & WP:NACTOR. Celestina007 (talk) 17:16, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:16, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:16, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:16, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:08, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Celestina007, I understand that a discussion is now to take place regarding the article? - dflaw4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dflaw4 (talk • contribs) 06:38, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass the notability guidelines for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: obviously as I wrote the article I would like to see it remain. The actor has had two significant recurring roles in well-known TV series, both of which ran over the course of about a year. The recurring role in Major Crimes involved a prominent side storyline which involved main character Rusty and which fed into Rusty's love interest storyline. The actor has also appeared in several TV movies for Lifetime, including Manson's Lost Girls and Killer Vacation, and notable films such as Hard Sell and Endings, Beginnings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dflaw4 (talk • contribs) 03:47, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Obviously fails the WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. I don't see any lead/main roles of significant films or TV series. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 21:53, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Lead/main roles in movies Battle for Skyark, Killer Vacation, Manson's Lost Girls and upcoming Smiley Face Killers.Dflaw4 (talk) 00:34, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject fails the WP:NACTOR criteria, which should be addressed specifically by editors who claim notability of the subject. Wikipedia is not a storage of all-encompassing information about anything. -The Gnome (talk) 08:30, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In response to the question of lead/main roles in significant films/TV series (Criterion 1 of WP:NACTOR), while the actor has not starred in any television series, he has had two significant recurring guest roles in Bunheads (in fact, he was already listed on Wikipedia's page for Bunheads) and in Major Crimes. His role in Major Crimes involved a side-storyline that ran over the course of about a year, and which was important to the development of main character Rusty, as it led him into a relationship. The actor also appeared in Major Crimes' companion vlog that character Rusty creates and uploads to YouTube—few guest-stars were featured in this series of vlogs. These roles, therefore, were not mere guest appearances; they involved important ongoing storylines. The actor did star in a web series, which received awards. Does winning awards make the series significant? Not necessarily, but it certainly adds to its significance in the critical realm.

As for films, the ones in which he has had lead or main roles include Battle for Skyark, which received mainly negative reviews from critics and viewers (there are about a dozen critic reviews via imdb.com). Does a negative response mean that it wasn't notable? I would argue no, unless notability is taken to mean quality, which I don't think it does. Killer Vacation and Manson's Lost Girls are lifetime movies, but I don't think this automatically rules them out, since lifetime movies have been in production for over 20 years and even very well known actors/actresses appear in them. With respect to Manson's Lost Girls in particular, I would argue that the actual subject matter (Charles Manson) lends itself to significance; indeed more than a dozen critic reviews can be found via imdb.com which discuss the way in which the movie portrays Manson and his followers. (And though it has not yet been released, the actor is to have a main role in Smiley Face Killers. Thanks to the fame of the main actor Crispin Glover and screenwriter Bret Easton Ellis, one would expect the film to be notable.) Other films the actor has had roles in, albeit not main roles, include Hard Sell and Endings, Beginnings, both of which are certainly notable (with their own Wikipedia pages, too).

The WP:NACTOR guidelines provide three criteria, but do not specify whether all three must be met (that is, Criterion 1, Criterion 2 "and" Criterion 3) or whether only one of them must be met (that is, Criterion 1, Criterion 2 "or" Criterion 3). This is ambiguous and arguably only one must be met. But assuming that all three are meant to be met, with regard to Criterion 2 it is difficult to measure the popularity or the size of a fan base of an actor who isn't a major star. So it would be quite impossible to classify a fan base as "large" or not; it would be pure speculation.

Criterion 3 is very subjective and, again, difficult to adequately address. There are many Wikipedia articles on entertainers who would be considered neither "unique" nor "prolific" nor "innovative", though certainly competent and hard-working in their fields. I believe the actor would fall into the "competent and hard-working" category, but again, there lies a great deal of subjectivity there.Dflaw4 (talk) 12:48, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, and by this I mean on the basis of your own words, criterion #1 is not met (since, as you said, "he has not starred in any television series"); criterion #2 is not met (since you find it "quite impossible to classify a fan base as 'large' or not"); and criterion #3 is not met either (because, as you said, it is "very subjective and, again, difficult to adequately address").

Well, guess what, the reponse to all those objections is sourcing! Wikipedia is all about sources. If we have reliable, independent sources indicating that any of the three criteria is met, we have a claim on notability. We might even have an article.

So, it's astounding that after describing how our subject does not satisfy any of WP:NACTOR criteria, you're suggesting to Keep the text on the basis of nothing really (except perhaps on the basis of personal preference). But that is not how Wikipedia works. This is not some exhaustive cinema directory nor a collection of randomly collected information. -The Gnome (talk) 15:38, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot vote twice, Dflaw4. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:49, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I did not mean to make it seem as if I was voting again. Thanks for your correction. Dflaw4 (talk) 12:54, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion 1 does not require the actor to have starred in any TV series, but to have had "significant" roles. Whether a role is "significant" or not is subjective. I outlined why I believe the actor has had "significant roles"; I certainly did not concede that Criterion 1 was not met. I only mentioned Criteria 2 and 3 in passing, as WP:NACTOR is ambiguous as to whether all three criteria must be met or only one. In fact, you say that a claim on notability would be made out if sources indicate "that any of the three criteria is met"; therefore, I take it that only one criterion must be made out. If you do not believe that the sources demonstrate the actor to have had "significant" roles in "notable" TV series, films and other productions, so be it. Thank you for your response, although the tone of your comments really wasn't necessary. Dflaw4 (talk) 02:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing to add to what I stated above, Dflaw4, behind which I stand in full. But I went back to examine the language and I found nothing that reads like an ad hominem or even adversarial. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 10:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I neither claimed that you used ad hominem nor were adversarial, but the sarcastic tone (e.g., "Well, guess what...") wasn't necessary, as I say. Thanks for your response. Dflaw4 (talk) 12:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Major Crimes. Recurring roles on two television series does not satisfy GNG, otherwise every actor and their dog would have an article. – DarkGlow (talk) 16:52, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Had it been just two recurring roles, I would agree. However, redirecting is better than nothing. Dflaw4 (talk) 02:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to the above editors for their comments. I am glad to see that the article had approx. 175 views over the past week, regardless of what is to happen to the article now. Dflaw4 (talk) 12:12, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment with regard to Criterion 2 of WP:NACTOR: Though I'm sure this is not how a fan base/popularity should ordinarily be assessed for the purposes of this criterion, it is interesting to note that, from Dec. 19 to Dec. 27, the article has had 216 views, with an average of 24 views/day. While these numbers are certainly not huge, they are comparable to—and, in some instances, high than—articles which have been kept (I'm happy to list some of the articles I'm referring to). I'm interested to see if the numbers will continue to rise on Dec. 28. Dflaw4 (talk) 14:07, 28 December 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.