Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack saperstein

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 - does not meet WP:BIO requirements. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jack saperstein

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

Declined speedy, but I'm pretty sure this still qualifies under A7 and G11. It's pretty much just a resume. Irbisgreif (talk) 22:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The page at hand is an encyclopedic entry about an actor. There is information about his personal life and career. Granted there is also information on the page regarding his work history in the entertainment field. This is because he is an entertainer. These accomplishments have value and help in defining and noting the actor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hangloose 42 (talk • contribs) 23:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree with Hangloose 42. If you visit ANY encyclopedic page for ANY actor, director, producer, CEO, Writer, Musician, etc. The page is naturally going to list or state the persons accomplishments aka work history. I do acknowledge what Irbisgreif is saying. There is information on this page about work history but without it an accurate depiction of Jack Saperstein isn't possible. Plus the majority of information listed on the page talks about the guys family and past and how he got started.yours truly beekiepurple —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beekiepurple (talk • contribs) 23:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hangloose and Beekiepurple, the problem is that the article doesn't show why he's notable - all it mentions are roles as an extra in various films and TV programmes. What is really needed is significant coverage in independent, reliable sources; note that this does not usually include mere entries in directories like the IMDB. David^(Talk) 00:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very minor roles only. DGG ( talk ) 00:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – fails notability criteria. BTW - It appears Beekiepurple is Jack Saperstein's mother. See [1]]. ttonyb1 (talk) 00:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Do Not Delete~~ Keep - One search on google will show you how creditable this kid is. Further more Search his Father on google (frank Saperstein) this guy is a well known producer who is famous within the entertainment community. he's been nominated for emmys and has produced hit shows such as ren and stimpy, the new leave it to beaver, bob and margret, and his company is producing the new hit HBO show hung. and that is just to name a few. THERE ARE NO MINOR ROLES AND NO EXTRA WORK. This kid has done geust starring roles and star roles on major hit TV shows and in feature films. Search the saperstein family. They have donated entire medical wings to UCLA. Search David Saperstien. Search The harlem globe trotters. This family is very influential especially in the entertainment field. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hangloose 42 (talk • contribs) 00:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – Notability does not rub off on others. If that were true, all the waiters and parking attendants in Hollywood would have a page on Wikipedia. ttonyb1 (talk) 00:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ttonyb1 you just contradicted your self read your last two posts. Further more what you just said doesn't really make sense and is not truth. With all due respect your opinion doesnt help facts do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hangloose 42 (talk • contribs) 00:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Hangloose 42, I will warn you only once about removing mine or anyone else's comments from this AfD. You action in [2] is not appreciated, and will not get you any sympathy from the Wikipedia community. ttonyb1 (talk) 00:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Comment - This kid is completely notable as what seems to be the delema here. here are the plain and simple facts. The page shows who he is, why he is, and how he is. It explains his life and how he got to his position. The page shows and verifies notable accomplishments. The page was modeled after current wikipedia pages that have been up for years and deal with the same topic (child actors). His notability is unquestionable, if you have access to google or IMDB that is evident. Many of the negative comments made about this page are contradictory and although I'm sure were put her with good intentions, they do not address any key issues just their personal opinions. Further more it is impossible for any of us to be fluent in all topics listed on wikipededia and it is possible that the field of child entertainment is not you forte. your understanding would be much appreciated. I worked very hard to make sure that this page was in accordance to all of the wiki rule and guidelines. If you feel very strongly about you opinion. I would love to get your help on solving this unnecessary delema. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hangloose 42 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

some child entertainers have major roles; some do not--most of the roles here are just "voices". the only way to solve the dilemma is to not try for an article until the person has actually become notable. DGG ( talk ) 03:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looking at the subject's IMDb entry at [3], it appears that most of his work so far has been looping voices for ADR, which is useful to the entertainment industry but not the kind of activity that brings a person to public attention. I also notice that his IMDb entry appears to contain errors such as having him do looping voices for a Catalan-language TV movie from Spain titled E.R. when he was 3 years old; presumably this was the result of confusion with ER (TV series). When he starts having multiple acting (not looping) roles in productions that have been released and achieved some public notice, the article can be re-created at that time. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. the vast majority of the roles listed are wildly non-notable, most of them are not even roles, they appear to be walla, just background noise, not even voice acting. Hairhorn (talk) 05:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThere is no "walla" as you called it of any kind. all of this guys roles are legitimate and can be backed up. He has a lead role on a television show airing on a major network that has already been picked up for a second season. I visited the IMDB site and found the one mistake for the Spanish television show, keep in mind IMDB is a publicly contributed site, obviously someone made a mistake on that one section, that mistake has not been carried over to wiki. all you have to do is look up the projects on google or just type in Saperstein into a google search, this family in general is everywhere and involved in everything. Im talking Major league Sports investments, Television production, Real Estate, and College donations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.42.129 (talk) 09:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC) — 75.82.42.129 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

If it's not walla, I'd love to hear exactly what he was doing; most of his credits are for "voice" but they're on live-action shows. This kind of thing is no more notable than extra work, even if it pays better. Hairhorn (talk) 20:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't seem to have had any significant roles as yet, although good luck to him in the future. Unrelated activities of other members of his family have no bearing on his own notability -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see a large conflict of interest from Hangloose, Beekiepurple and the anon editors and wouldn't really consider their keep !votes. As for the subject, there is nothing to confer notability in the slightest and doesn't like much more than a somewhat shallow attempt by someone with vested interest in his career to get some attention drawn his way. treelo _radda 09:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:N like the others with delete votes have stated. ArcAngel (talk) 02:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable actor, it would be very very generous to even characterise his roles as "minor". Needless to say, doesn't meet WP:BIO notability criteria. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:49, 1 September 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.