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. While sources were added during the AFD, the consensus thereafter as well as overall was to delete this page. Contributions of new and unregistered users have been given less weight. Stifle (talk) 19:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Rafalowicz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

I actually deleted this article because of a lack of available reliable sources before I realized how long it's page history is and the fact it had survived an AfD back in 2005. (apparently I was looking at another page's history in a different tab...) I thought I'd better restore the page and relist it here. Thingg^⊕⊗ 04:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - While most of these don't qualify for WP:RS, I'd argue that they can confer notability if there are enough of them. For instance, he turns up several times in a Google Book search, he has a Rotton Tomatoes page, and he has a New York Times page. However, he really hasn't acted in any other major roles, so his notability is shaky. DARTH PANDA^duel 05:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - All of the aforementioned pages could easily be (and I would submit indeed were) authored by the subject himself. This person is not a well known figure, the movies that are included are not of notoriety, and the references to various posts that the subject holds are not noteworthy (i.e. a president of a students association - there are 100000s of these in the world!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.192.80.31 (talk) 05:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, PLEASE before nominating to keep of delete - look at the WP:BIO page. This page does not satisfy that critieria, (and may I point out that "Google hits" do not satisfy that criteria either. 203.192.80.31 (talk) 05:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Ah, but WP:DEL stipulates that an article that can be improved should not be deleted. I'm trying to look at the best-case scenario here; if the article can be saved, we certainly do not want to delete it, even if it fails WP:COI (as that is not a deletion criteria). DARTH PANDA^duel 05:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Totally agree with you re the WP:DEL policy and potential for improvement, but in this scenario I would respectfully submit that there is no potential for improvement! This person is not of notoriety, has not achieved anything which someone on Wikipedia would want to read about and does not meet other relevant guidelines. It is an article created by the subject presumably to support a case for future acting endeavours. And, at that time, if successful, it would be appropriate for him to have his own article! 203.192.80.31 (talk) 12:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as he does not meet the notability criteria. All sources presented thus far are merely directory type entries, which are not usually held to establish notability. While he has been in notable films, the parts that he has had in them would appear to be minor bit parts. It would seem that he does not meet the WP:ENTERTAINER notability guideline. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

• STRONG DELETE I cannot believe that there is people who suggest we should keep this article. If someone looks at the "long history" of edits, it is nothing more than an editing war between (presumably) the subject himself (or a close friend) and other, rational people who do not believe he deserves an entry. As has already been said, it does not comply with ANY of the wiki guidelines for articles of this nature. 203.122.242.126 (talk) 22:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I'm not sure if I should be insulted by this comment, but please refrain from attacks on editors during an AfD. I'm entitled to my own opinion just as you are to yours; there is no need to comment in such a manner that I am "unbelievable." Furthermore, there is also no reason to vote more than once. You can append your new opinions after your old one. DARTH PANDA^duel 01:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Sincere apologies, I assure you that my comment was in no way intended to be a personal attack on you, notwithstanding that is how it came across. I'm new to this. And I have only voted once... not sure what you're talking about there. Sorry again!! 203.122.242.126 (talk) 01:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Bah, there goes my eyes... Misread your IP and confused it with the IP above. You folks should create accounts >_<... It's too confusing with numbers, heh. DARTH PANDA^duel 12:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep With only a few minor roles (two in albeit notable movies), subject fails WP:ENTERTAINER. However, the additional mentions of activity in United Nations Youth Association of Australia advances notability claims. Murtoa (talk) 04:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Numerous sources available in Google news search. I'll add some to article. Michellecrisp (talk) 02:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've now added eleven reliable sources. Michellecrisp (talk) 03:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Notwithstanding the reliable sources, they do not make the subject a person of notoriety. It is not disputed that he was educated at those places, appeared in those films and is involved in student politics. However, each of these things on their own, and together, fail to meet various Wikipedia Policies, eg WP:BLP, WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:BIO 203.122.242.126 (talk) 04:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He does not necessarily have to meet WP:ENTERTAINER, as I think he passes WP:BIO. Michellecrisp (talk) 04:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How exactly does he meet the WP:BIO criteria? That is, how is the subject, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded?" The "reliable sources" (which I agree with you, they are) do not satisfy this point. Johnson8776 (talk) 07:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Of the 12 references in total, five are reviews of the film "Shine" with all but one (Time) making no comment on his performance. Together with the Seattle Times review of Look Both Ways, these six references do not substantially advance his claims under WP:ENTERTAINER, which seeks "significant roles in multiple notable films...". The remaining references largely align with his United Nations Youth Association activity, although one is not independent of the subject. On balance, the independent coverage of his UNYA activities now slightly tips the balance for me and I have altered my vote above. Murtoa (talk) 04:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• CLEAR DELETE Subject is not notable. Merely appearing as an "extra" or getting a passing reference in a movie review does not suffice under WP:BIO or WP:ENTERTAINER. Also, subject's student activities are not notable in line with WP:BIO. As the talk page for this article suggests, there are thousands of students across the world who hold positions in student/youth organisations and this does not warrant a Wikipedia article. In fact, many members of the actual United Nations do not have a Wikipedia entry, and I do not see why a Youth Ambassador ought to have one. As noted above, noone disputes the veracity of this article, but that is not the point. Not only must the entries be true, they must also be noteworthy, which, in this case, it is not. Johnson8776 (talk) 07:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I can't debate the fact that his participation in a youth organization is not notable. However, his roles in films are and that is why he should be kept. If the page can be cleaned up and/or improved, WP:DEL stipulates that it should NOT be deleted. DARTH PANDA^duel 13:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The films in which he has appeared may be notable but that doesn't make him notable on that basis alone. WP:ENTERTAINER seeks "significant roles in multiple notable films..." which I'm not convinced he satisfies. The question for me is whether the combined impact of his film and UNYA activities gets him over the line. Murtoa (talk) 03:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Agreed with you Murtoa. The fact that he has appeared in one film, and had passing mention does not satisfy WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:BIO. And I would argue that the "Combination" argument is not sufficient for this reason: Someone who fails one category, and fails another category cannot, by those categories combined be said to be notable. This is especially so where those categories are different things. For example, if they are multiple films where he fails notability, then together they may get him over the line. But a film and participation in a youth organisation cannot possibly, together, equate to notoriety. I dont think that the drafters of the Wiki policies would envisage that a non-noteworthy actor, coupled with his non-noteworthy activites makes him noteworthy! Johnson8776 (talk) 03:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC) — Johnson8776 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Comment: I note that Michellecrisp has added this "Single Purpose Account" notice. First, this is not my single purpose, and a look at my history will verify that, second, Michellecrisp, rather than try to discredit my point of view on this item, why not engage in the debate (I refer specifically to my above question asking how he satisfies WP:BIO) and third, please declare your bias to this subject (of which I have none). Johnson8776 (talk) 06:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have zero connection with Alex. Secondly, the Single purpose tag also says few other topics. An account that was initially created solely to participate in this discussion and very few other articles falls into that. I am not required to answer your specific questions, especially from someone with a short history of editing. How a new account suddenly goes straight to a deletion discussion is interesting. Perhaps you need to declare any interest you have. Michellecrisp (talk) 13:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I'm not sure how this page could be "improved" to show greater notability. Considering the long edit history, and the long period of time since his appearance in the films, surely any true notability could already have been established. It seems that any improvement of this article would come from the subject securing a major film role or otherwise doing something that established actual notability, but that would then make keeping the article a violation of WP:CRYSTAL.--98.233.11.61 (talk) 04:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC) — 98.233.11.61 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• I know him so keep this he's an awesome actor!!! And he's propbably going to get some new role which will make him famous! Dont delete it before he gets them!~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.96.130.104 (talk) 00:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC) — 129.96.130.104 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  
  

SUMMARY Putting aside all of the rubbish that is going backwards and forwards on this article, I am keen to reach a consensus. Can I propose to summarise what are the issues here:
1. Whether the subject's film appearances are sufficient to get him past WP:BIO and WP:ENTERTAINER;
2. Whether the subject's United Nations Youth activities are sufficiently note worthy under WP:BIO; and
3. If "no" to 1. and 2., whether the film and UN work together get him over the line.'
In making these decisions, can I encourage respondents (nominating both keep and delete) to have reference to the relevant Wiki criteria, and refrain from comments like "I think he passes/fails WP:BIO". I wont repeat my above discussion, as it is clear I think the answer is "no" to 1. 2. and 3. But please, if anyone feels the need to add to those questions above do so, so that we can reach consensus rather than merely "voting": WP:AfD Johnson8776 (talk) 05:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why such the the strong interest in this topic? Why not accept the outcome of the discussion no matter what the decision? Michellecrisp (talk) 05:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your question Michelle. I'm more than happy to accept the outcome of this topic, although with various personal attacks flying backwards and forwards I just thought it was worth summarising where we were at. You will notice that this is the first major discussion I've been involved in, so that is why I am interested in the outcome. Johnson8776 (talk) 06:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have never seen such good knowledge of Wikipedia policy for a first timer in a deletion discussion, perhaps you want to declare if you have any association with Alex Rafalowicz? Michellecrisp (talk) 06:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to your question, I do solemnly declare that I do not know Alex. I'm relatively new to this, so I have taken quite some time to read all the various policies. I think its important for other newcomers to have their attention drawn towards these policies so that this does not become a "vote" but rather, a proper consensus, with reference to the policies. Its far easier to accept the outcome that way, dont you agree? I would like to refer you to the "Good Faith" policy, and also, once again, ask you to refrain from personal attacks, and finally, give your opinion as to why you think he satisfies the policies. If you are correct, then so be it! Let the article stay! Johnson8776 (talk) 06:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My questions and comments are not personal attacks but in my time as an experienced editor, I must admit I do have concerns about the way you are trying to push an outcome in this deletion discussion. When someone closes this discussion, the strength of each person's arguments is taken into account, simply forcing people to answer your queries won't work. Michellecrisp (talk) 06:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying to push an outcome. I am just trying to facilitate reaching a consensus. See above, where I inserted the summary, each quesiton posed with no bias whatsoever. I am merely trying to encourage adherence to Wikipedia's policies.

then you will accept the outcome. note if no consensus is reached the article is kept. Michellecrisp (talk) 06:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not much claim of notability. Rebecca (talk) 08:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: notability not established. JamesBurns (talk) 02:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Almost all of the sources cited in the article are in the forms of press releases etc. Sources should be

"Independent of the subject" [which]excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.

References 1, 3, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12 (and possibly others fall foul of this. The others, while independent do not confer notability.203.192.80.31 (talk) 08:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The article reads like a resume listing a bunch of activities that, while verifiable, do not confer notability (various positions in student organizations). The sources are pretty flimsy as well. That covers the WP:BIO claim. He fails WP:ENTERTAINER by a mile or so, I won't bother to detail that. Pcap ping 14:21, 29 November 2008 (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.