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. This is a close call in terms of !votes, but the arguments on the delete side are stronger than those on the keep side. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lyman Chen[edit]

Lyman Chen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Delete appears to be a bit part actor, fails WP:BIO Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  18:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep As his career grows, so will the article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Subjects should be worthy of inclusion at the time we have the article. Speculating based on what happens in the future, especially when that future is not certain is prohibited by WP:CRYSTAL. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is the bad kind of unreferenced BLP. It's already attracted the kind of "dossier of links" kind of nonsense that can easily be harmful to the subject. I'm willing to be moved if we can find substantial sources, but right now, we only have a university paper reporting on an alumnus and a dossier site. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Out of curiosity, what do you mean by "dossier of links", and why do think it is harmful to the subject? decltype (talk) 10:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Punch a name into Google, list all of the things that come back regardless of how trivial or how personal. This is a dossier of links, so-and-so lived here at some point, so-and-so graduated here, so-and-so worked here, etc. It borders on an invasion of privacy, and if we're going to write an encyclopedic biography we should be using sources that are about the subject, not random bits of data scattered all over the internet. A number of people have been embarassed or harmed because, say, their arrest record happened to be one of those bits of data. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 18:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete One source is unavailable, the other two are not independent. IMDB suggests his roles are minor ones, meaning he fails WP:ENTERTAINER guidelines. _ Mgm|^(talk) 09:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sourcing exists to support acting career; IMDB, for instance can back up the film and TV career. Here's a television interview sourcable to CBS5; U of Deleware interview; On a Role Deleware Today story; U of Deleware Alumni news; Panelist participant at Philadelphia's Asian American Film Festival Panel - Breaking into the Industry & Breaking Stereotypes from an Asian American Perspective; panelist “How To Break Into The Film Industry” Panel; etc. As an Asian American he has received attention and quite a few non-trivial sources do exist. To the best info from the many and the article becomes a reasonable building block for when bigger movie roles garner more media exposure. Also, the various movies undoubtably have at least some coverage within the commentary sections that can discuss his acting as an interpreter. There may also be some foriegn language coverage but I didn't send those through an interprteing device. -- Banjeboi 23:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not enough to meet actor notability guidelines. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The actor has played a notable role in enough notable films, to be considered notable, by the notability guidelines. Dream Focus 03:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Such as? Do you mean a supporting role in the first film of a small production company that has yet to make a second film, or his roles like "Passenger #3" or "Grocery store owner"? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Why do you pick out the obviously minor roles?

1. No Boundaries (2009) (completed) .... Border Patrol #1
2. Made for Each Other (2009) (completed) .... Chinese Husband
3. Tenure (2009) .... Steve Kim
4. The Happening (2008) .... Passenger #3
5. A Certain Darkness (2008) .... Rich Hampton
6. Leaf (2008) .... Roman A. Smith
7. All Along (2007) .... Larry
8. The Departed (2006) .... Translator
9. Ice Cream (2004) .... Grocery Store Owner
10. The Push (2004) (TV) .... Chen
11. "Interpol Investigates" (2004) TV series .... Detective Ming Li (Episode - One Way Ticket, 2004) (unknown episodes)

• The roles where the character have a name, are the ones worth investigating. Some of the films are notable by current wikipedia standards, since they have blue links to them. Anyone who played a significant role in them, in a notable film, is therefore notable. Dream Focus 15:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  That's a very nice job of copy-pasting IMDB, but I did investigate each role. I was challenging you to back up your claim of "notable role in enough notable films" by pointing out a notable role or a notable film. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Does not meet the guidelines for inclusion at this time. The role he is best known for isn't even mentioned in the cast or plot summary of The Departed. That's not a significant role, as required by WP:ENTERTAINER. decltype (talk) 07:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails entertainer. Clincher is that he's best known for a role that didn't make it on the cast sheet for the movie he was in. Sound more like "not known at all."Bali ultimate (talk) 15:36, 4 May 2009 (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.