Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Spinning Spark 23:36, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Nathan Norman

Nathan Norman (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails the general notability guideline as well as WP:NPOL and WP:MUSIC. No significant coverage of him in any outside sources that I could find. Sources are all either self-published sites, non-notable blogs or sites. Ddcm8991 ( talk) 18:07, 10 September 2015 (UTC) reply

-- Giant Bernard ( talk) 18:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment. Please be advised that IMDB is not considered an acceptable source for WP. -- Cagepanes ( talk) 23:01, 11 September 2015 (UTC) reply
I'm pretty sure that it is used as a source in many places in the encyclopedia. Is this your judgement, or is there a discussion somewhere perhaps? Dustin  (talk) 21:34, 12 September 2015 (UTC) reply
IMDb is allowed as an external link on an article about a person who has worked in the film industry — but as a user-generated site that can and does contain uncaught errors, it doesn't count as a reliable source for use as a reference. See Wikipedia:Citing IMDb. Bearcat ( talk) 19:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 20:47, 10 September 2015 (UTC) reply

*Keep. The subject is currently at third place for his party's presidential ticket and placed third in the 2016 Libertarian National Convention with 11% of the vote. Being that the Libertarian Party is a notable party in the United States, being in the third place spot makes him notable. -- Cagepanes ( talk) 05:32, 12 September 2015 (UTC) Striking comments as invalid -they were left by a sock of indeffed user Kbabej. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:39, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:39, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:39, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Likely delete as although II find his goals humorous, I see nothing to suggest improvement and there are no outstanding roles to suggest moving elsewhere. SwisterTwister talk 07:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Am I allowed a vote? Disclosure: I have done major work on the article recently. -- Giant Bernard ( talk) 10:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply
It's not a vote we're having here. And yes, we'd like to hear from you. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 04:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I have reviewed Wikipedia policies and I have come to the conclusion that Nathan Norman is notable under Wikipedia policies. He has been covered in the publications The New York Post, San Francisco Chronicle, Independent Political Report, Irregular Times, American Third Party Report, Internet Movie Database, The Green Papers, Politics1.com, and did feature interviews with Starry Constellation Magazine and Silber Media. -- Giant Bernard ( talk) 03:49, 15 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per Ddcm8991. - Moonboy54 ( talk) 02:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - this page was created back in January 2006. Nobody questioned the subject's notability until he decided to run for president. That gives the appearance of political animus behind this nomination. Nevertheless, politics aside, the subject meets the criteria under WP:ENTERTAINER. He has "had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" including a significant role in Unidentified, lead guitarist for Devo 2.0, and a starring role in commercials for various notable companies. Those three significant roles alone constitute "multiple." Now he is running for president and he has started to receive significant coverage for that as well, as Giant Bernard points out.-- William S. Saturn ( talk) 04:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per lack of notability. The subject's "claims to fame" fall into two categories: politics and entertainment (which can itself be broken down into Music and Film). Let's start with his notability as a musician. The subject's only substantial claim here is that he was a member of Devo 2.0. But the notability guidelines for musicians state quite clearly that individuals do not inherit notability from any bands in which they were members. And as for Devo 2.0 itself, it only released one album and it didn't chart. Devo 2.0 itself does not meet the criteria for notability and has its own article only because of its relationship with the real Devo. So, the subject's claim to notability as a musician is an unusual case of "inheritance twice removed". As for notability as an actor, Mr. Saturn points us to a "significant" role in the film Unidentified. But the folks who wrote the article on the film didn't consider the instant subject's role to atbe significant, as he is not even mentioned in the article. Furthermore, five of the six persons listed as "Main Cast" don't have their own articles (the exception is Rebecca St. James, whose notability stems largely from being a Grammy- and Dove-Award-winning singer). And so, whether we look at music or films, the subject does not meet any of the well-established guidelines for notability in those fields.
Looking to politics, the guidelines on notability are clear that it is not conferred upon anyone simply because they are running for an office. But there is another bizarre aspect to this ... the subject is only 24 years old! He is not eligible to be president of the United States. And so, any claim to notability on the basis of being a candidate for US president not only fails to meet the criteria for political notability, it also raises concerns for being a political version of a fringe theory.
Finally, I'll quickly address a concern raised by User:William_S._Saturn. None of here knows what was in the heart of the nominator when this nomination was made. Mr. Saturn raises the plausible possibility when he suggests a "political animus". But let me suggest another plausible possibility. In the years immediately following its creation, the article rarely received more than ten views per month. There were many months in which it received no views at all. It might well be that the political activity of the subject is precisely what caused the page to start getting more views, and the nomination might be the simple result of someone seeing it for the first time. Given the equal plausibility of these two possibilities, I'm inclined to assume good faith on the part of the nominator. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 19:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Correction: In my last paragraph, I wrote of the number of views per month. That was in error. I meant the number of views per day. I regret any inconvenience caused by my error. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 20:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC) reply
It really doesn't make any difference whether he is included on the cast list of the wikipedia article for the movie or not. Reliable sources say he was in the movie and he is listed as part of the cast at IMDB. Regardless, even if that significance is in dispute, the subject retains inherent notability as an entertainer because of his multiple prominent roles in Devo 2.0 (which is notable on its own regardless of why) and starring performances in commercials for notable companies. The merits of his presidential candidacy should have no bearing on the outcome of this AFD. The question here is whether he satisfies WP:ENTERTAINER due to "multiple" significant roles in entertainment, and by virtue of the two significant roles alone, he meets that criteria. -- William S. Saturn ( talk) 21:09, 16 September 2015 (UTC) reply
I really don't see how those roles can be considered notable. Moonboy54 ( talk) 02:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The roles do not need to be notable, they have to be significant. Lead guitarist is a significant role in a band that has already been established as notable due to coverage in reliable sources. Starring roles are also significant roles in commercials for multiple notable companies.-- William S. Saturn ( talk) 03:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Given the length of my first posting, I'll not repeat my earlier points here. I'll just list a few questions and direct comments.

Devo 2.0 The guidelines at WP:Music state (at the end of the first section) Note that members of notable bands are re-directed to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases. Mr. Saturn, even if you consider Devo 2.0 to be independently notable, can you give us any reason to ignore this well-established guideline?

It's not being ignored. Band membership is not the only claim of notability. There are additional claims of notability including acting.-- William S. Saturn ( talk) 23:57, 18 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Film actor The guideline at WP:ACTORBIO requires evidence of "multiple" significant roles. So far, we have been pointed to only one film ( Unidentified). The subject article points us to another -- an appearance on a television show. But the article for that show ( here) doesn't mention the subject, either as a member of the main cast or as a recurring character. Indeed, even the fancruft page giving an entire list of characters who appeared on the show doesn't mention the subject. As things stand right now, the only evidence we have that the subject appeared in an episode of that show comes from IMDB (and specifically, an IMDB biography that is credited to "Agent").

I cited above to WP:ENTERTAINER. The subject is notable for more than just being an actor.-- William S. Saturn ( talk) 23:57, 18 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Commercials Aside from the question of whether an actor can be notable for appearing in a few television commercials, there is the problem of verifiability. As you know, it is not enough for a statement to be true, it must also be verifiable from third-party sources. All we have in the article are statements made by the subject in interviews. As primary (i.e. first-person) sources, they are not acceptable. Before typing this post, I went to the web site for AdWeek (a trade publication for the advertising industry) and checked their on-line archive. That archive goes back to the late 90s, thus spanning the subject's acting-in-commercials period. There is nothing there, not even a passing mention. Mr. Saturn, can you point us to anything, whether in the trade publications or the mainstream media, that provides significant coverage of the subject's career in commercials?

I really don't know enough about this to respond. I actually found the commercial discussed on one of the magazine interviews on the website you mentioned [1].-- William S. Saturn ( talk) 23:57, 18 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Political campaign In your earlier response, Mr. Saturn, you stated that "the merits of [the subject's] presidential candidacy should have no bearing on the outcome of this AFD". Perhaps that was a concession that the subject has failed to establish notability under WP:NPOL (and if I've misinterpreted your statement, please correct me). But my point here is that, whether or not you are conceding the issue, the article itself makes no such concession. The subject's political activities are the first thing mentioned in the introduction and there is a separate section devoted to his political campaign (and the amount of text devoted to that section is roughly on a par with the amount of text in the "entertainer" section). The article's only external link goes to the official web site for the subject's political campaign and there is a navbox that lists the subject as a candidate for "US Presidential election, 2016". This article is very much about the subject's candidacy. And given that his age makes him ineligible for office, the fringe nature of the candidacy should have a bearing on the outcome of this discussion. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 23:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC) reply

"given that his age makes him ineligible for office, the fringe nature of the candidacy should have a bearing on the outcome of this discussion" - Absolutely not. It is not appropriate for wikipedia to exclude candidates based on age. If reliable sources list someone as a candidate, then they should be listed regardless of whether anyone agrees with the content of the campaign or believe the candidate is ineligible for the office. Several presidential candidates have attained ballot access (such as Peta Lindsay) despite being under 35.-- William S. Saturn ( talk) 23:57, 18 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 15:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. As the motive for this nomination has been called into question by User:William S. Saturn above, I (as the nominator) would like to clarify that there is no "political animus" involved. User:NewYorkActuary has accurately assessed that "the political activity of the subject is precisely what caused the page to start getting more views, and the nomination might be the simple result of someone seeing it for the first time". Yes, I was unaware of this page until the subject was listed as a candidate. I concluded he was non-notable after reviewing the sources for the entire article, not just the ones for his candidacy (note I referred to WP:MUSIC in the nomination statement). I still stand by that position, and note that much of the sourcing for his music/entertainment career is largely based on IMDb, which is not considered a reliable source because it is largely user-generated (see Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites#IMDb).-- Ddcm8991 ( talk) 18:44, 17 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Just not seeing the notability here. SOXROX ( talk) 02:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Don't see signicant coverage in sources that satisfy WP:RS.-- Newbreeder ( talk) 17:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Definitely keep. Even if it could be argued that his acting or political ventures by themselves are not notable (and that's certainly disputable, since his article has been up for a long time with only the acting), I think the two careers combine definitely lead to notability. Academic Challenger ( talk) 01:23, 19 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Having multiple careers, even in entertainment and related fields, does not ensure notability. The careers, or at least one, must clearly meet notability guidelines. The age of an article is no indicator of notability, either. It has been pointed elsewhere in this conversation that the page received a very low number of views until recently.-- Ddcm8991 ( talk) 17:15, 21 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nomination. No establishment of notability. Significant coverage in sources meeting the WP:RS threshold is just not there.-- 4scoreN7 ( talk) 12:45, 20 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - since this is not a vote I assume all the people above misapplying Wikipedia policy by ignoring the truth that Nathan Norman actually fulfills the requirements of WP:Entertainer will be disregarded. -- Giant Bernard ( talk) 23:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC) reply
WP:ENTERTAINER is passed on the basis of reliable source coverage. No notability claim on Wikipedia ever confers a freebie on a person who can be sourced only to blogs, IMDb and his own website. A claim does not automatically pass an inclusion criterion just because it's made — the quality of the sourcing that can be provided to support the notability claim is what gets a person past ENTERTAINER, not the claim itself. Bearcat ( talk) 03:50, 21 September 2015 (UTC) reply
I see interviews on Starry Constellation Magazine and SilberMedia. I do not believe these can be classified as "blogs, IMDb and his own website." Starry Constellation Magazine is sourced on a total of 35 wikipedia pages. SilberMedia is sourced on 11 wikipedia pages. Furthermore, I do not believe the New York Post, Irregular Times, The Green Papers, and Politics1.com would fall into that category either.-- William S. Saturn ( talk) 04:50, 21 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Nearly all of those fall into the category of WP:QUESTIONABLE or WP:USERGENERATED. Of the ones you listed, the New York Post comes closest to being an RS in itself, but it is often treated with suspicion as such because of its tabloid-ish style and the countless high-profile lawsuits and controversies its content has sparked over the years. Besides, it only mentions the subject once, does not give significant coverage. The others don't have a an established reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight, and so cannot be classified as RS in and of themselves. They may be useful for verifying non-controversial information, but are insufficient for establishment of notability. Thus, in my judgment, the subject fails WP:ENTERTAINER.-- Ddcm8991 ( talk) 17:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Interviews with the subject don't count toward satisfying WP:GNG — they represent the subject talking about himself, rather than other people with fact checking capabilities and a lack of vested interest talking about him, and are therefore subject to the same problems as any other PR-style source. Interviews are acceptable for some supplementary confirmation of facts after the article already contains enough independent sourcing to pass GNG — but they cannot be the foundation of the article's sourcing. Bearcat ( talk) 18:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Here are some more reliable sources I found:

-- Giant Bernard ( talk) 06:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Thank you for the extra citations. But most of them merely confirm the subject's membership in Devo 2.0. That membership has never been in dispute. The real issue is how much (if any) notability can be inherited by the subject based on that membership. And the notability guidelines for musicians tell us that the answer is "none". Regarding the additional film appearance, 16 Stones has the same problem as does Unidentified. If you look at the posters for those two films ( here and here), you find that the subject does not appear on either of them (either in the picture or in the listing of the main cast). This tells us that, in both cases, even the producers of the films did not think that the subject's role was significant. But my main reason for writing this post is to address the AllMusic citation. There is a reason why AllMusic is not considered a reliable source, and your citation is a perfect illustration. The three drummer credits are not to the subject, but to a same-named jazz drummer active in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area. (You can see a picture of that other person by scrolling down to the bottom of this page.) NewYorkActuary ( talk) 20:51, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply
I am showing that Nathan Norman has been cover in reliable sources for his significant roles. I think 16 Stones is notable even though it is a red link. The Davis Clipper felt the role significant enough to merit a report on its effect on Nathan Norman's faith. -- Giant Bernard ( talk) 16:47, 24 September 2015 (UTC) reply
I have now created 16 Stones and so it is a red link no more. -- Giant Bernard ( talk) 02:55, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
It looks like now even if you discount the commercials, the "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" of WP:ENTERTAINER is satisfied by the significant role in the notable production Devo 2.0 and the significant role in notable film 16 Stones. Therefore, notability is established and so the page should be kept.-- William S. Saturn ( talk) 07:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
I have a question. Is the Nathan Norman who has a role in 16 Stones the same Nathan Norman who was in Devo.2 and in commercials, and the same person who is running for president? Because going by the sources, it's virtually impossible to tell whether they are all the same person. NewYorkActuary demonstrated above there is more than one musician named Nathan Norman. And a search on Google or Facebook will reveal that there are multiple persons having that name. What's confusing is that person who is the subject of The Davis Clipper article is described as being a life-long resident of Utah. In October 2014, he is said to be living "in North Salt Lake", but the presidential candidate of the same name says on his website that he is from Scranton, PA. While it's not inconceivable that he could have relocated within the past year, he also states on the site " I grew up in a lower middle class family in Scranton" which is completely at odds with what is reported in the Davis Clipper (which says Norman "grew up in West Point and has also lived in Centerville" - both towns in Utah). Also note the Clipper article makes no mention of a musical career, or his previous entertainment endeavors, so it's difficult to know for certain if it's the same person from Devo.2 & commercials. At the very least, I'm finding it highly difficult to believe that the person in The Davis Clipper article is the same person as the presidential candidate. Aside from the clear discrepancies noted above, the vastly different persona and demeanor that comes across of that of the subject in the aforementioned article and that of the candidate - exhibit A, exhibit B - along with the latter's noted tendencies to troll and use fake names (see exhibit A and B), there is more ample reason to find it dubious that the two are the same person.
In the event that the article is kept, the above-noted discrepancies will need to be resolved through verification in reliable secondary sources, or removal of primarily/unreliably sourced content. Otherwise, we leave Wikipedia open to potentially significant and contentious WP:BLP issues.-- Ddcm8991 ( talk) 18:01, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
With all that being said, I add that while there is indeed significant coverage in the Davis Clipper article, that particular publication is a small weekly newspaper that falls into the WP:QUESTIONABLE category. Although, in the above words of Bearcat, "acceptable for some supplementary confirmation of facts after the article already contains enough independent sourcing to pass GNG", insufficient for establishment of notability. I remain unconvinced that notability has been established, per WP:ENTERTAINER or otherwise.-- Ddcm8991 ( talk) 18:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
I contacted him on his campaign page and he pointed me to some of those sources. He did disclaim that the allmusic.com drummer was not him. -- Giant Bernard ( talk) 18:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Giant Bernard, if you're looking for more cites, a list of them appears here. They're from The Saturnalian, a blog run by a "William S. Saturn". NewYorkActuary ( talk) 20:56, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
That is not a reliable source unfortunately.-- William S. Saturn ( talk) 21:18, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Read through the entry and while he has set himself up to be an entertainer, he is just not that notable as of yet. As for seeking the U.S. Presidency, he is a bit too young. Heyyouoverthere ( talk) 22:25, 25 September 2015 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nathan_Norman&oldid=1137862824"

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE