- 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 no consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 18:46, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
David Waters (actor)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- David Waters (actor) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't contain a single source Whitemancanjump23 ( talk) 07:24, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Australia. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:19, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
- Delete a very common name, so it was difficult to find sources. Fails WP:ACTOR. LibStar ( talk) 23:25, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. The National Library of Australia has Biographical cuttings on David Waters, actor, containing one or more cuttings from newspapers or journals which by itself should be enough. Sources found include [1] and [2]. He posted a cuttin on facebook, unfortunately without details. Minor commentry on some plays in a look back here. A Critics choice award is verified page 4 (news and picture of him on pg 24). duffbeerforme ( talk) 11:45, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 00:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- Add sources I will not take a stance on deleting the article, since it might have notability. However, none is established from the total lack of sources therein. PickleG13 ( talk)
- Weak keep
weak delete(see discussion below). Firstly, I've added the sources referred to by duffbeerforme, to the extent that's WP:HEY. However, a thorough search of Trove and Australia & New Zealand Newsstream ProQuest revealed nothing of substance beyond those 2 short articles (both fairly superficial articles relating to Waters as the host of Matchmaker). Maybe the awards help sway the balance to meet WP:ACTOR but it seems pretty skinny to me. If he was truly notable, surely Google, Trove and Newsstream would have revealed more RSs... Cabrils ( talk) 02:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
-
Cabrils, What's wrong with biographical cuttings held by the National Library of Australia? What makes them useless?
duffbeerforme (
talk) 04:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
-
Duffbeerforme Nothing. But in this instance the
Biographical cuttings on David Waters, actor, containing one or more cuttings from newspapers or journals appear to be the 2 articles I added to the page, both from the Australian Women's Weekly. It's a bit unclear from that link you included to Trove but on my independent search of trove it did pull more results but most were the briefest of mentions of Waters in TV guides on what was on TV for a particular day, certainly nothing approaching substantial coverage/RS (as defined). But perhaps I'm missing something and there are other materials? If they are not available online (and so not easily verifiable) it does get a bit difficult to use them as the (sole) basis of an argument to retain the page, doesn't it? As I voted, I'm a weak delete so certainly open to persuasion (my predilection is generally to include).
Cabrils (
talk) 04:43, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
- Cabrils, where are you getting that the contents is just those two articles? If from my !vote then you've missunderstood me. Those two were found elsewhere. My guess is it contains others, such as the articles that were published when he went naked on stage in Queensland and the speculation over the potential actions of the very conservative police force. (Can you see [3]?) duffbeerforme ( talk) 04:53, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
-
Duffbeerforme Nothing. But in this instance the
Biographical cuttings on David Waters, actor, containing one or more cuttings from newspapers or journals appear to be the 2 articles I added to the page, both from the Australian Women's Weekly. It's a bit unclear from that link you included to Trove but on my independent search of trove it did pull more results but most were the briefest of mentions of Waters in TV guides on what was on TV for a particular day, certainly nothing approaching substantial coverage/RS (as defined). But perhaps I'm missing something and there are other materials? If they are not available online (and so not easily verifiable) it does get a bit difficult to use them as the (sole) basis of an argument to retain the page, doesn't it? As I voted, I'm a weak delete so certainly open to persuasion (my predilection is generally to include).
Cabrils (
talk) 04:43, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
-
Cabrils, What's wrong with biographical cuttings held by the National Library of Australia? What makes them useless?
duffbeerforme (
talk) 04:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
- Duffbeerforme Indeed I may have misunderstood you. But for the absence of doubt, the link you included above, for what you describe as sourced from the National Library of Australia, takes one to a page in Trove titled "Biographical cuttings on David Waters, actor, containing one or more cuttings from newspapers or journals" but includes no detail whatsoever, and may, on its own description, be a reference to only a single article. The only articles I could otherwise find in Trove were those I described above, being 2 of (arguable) substance. Your "guess" may be right, but in the absence of verifiable reliable sources it would seem challenging to argue that the page in fact satisfies WP:GNG, WP:ACTOR etc. I have just undertaken a search on Newsbank (news database) and found no articles. So for clarity, I have undertaken searches via Google, Trove, Newsstream and Newsbank, and found 2 articles (both fairly superficial articles relating to Waters as the host of Matchmaker, both published in the Australian Women's Weekly) which I have added to the page.
- Yes I can see the Facebook link to the 1975 Queensland production of EQUUS. I can't make out the source of those photos of newspaper articles but I would have thought 1975 would be covered by Trove? They might be great, but in that Facebook form I'm not persuaded they meet RS.
- For these reasons I maintain my vote of weak delete, but again, I would be delighted to change it if we can find RS establishing Waters' notability.
Cabrils (
talk) 05:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
- Troves coverage is actually pretty limited. LOTS of articles exist that have not yet been added. 1975 seems to be in a bit of a black hole, not in trove which has better coverage of earlier decades and too early for the likes of newsbank. Trove does not appear to have any qld papers from then. Eg David Rowbotham reviewed Red, White and Boogie (a play with Wathers) in the Courier Mail in 27 Nov 1974 but that can't be found online.
- Dismissing online sources for not being easily verifiable flies in the face of wp:v. Source(s) have been shown to exist. You can't just dismiss them without a better reason than just I can't see them. Anyone in Canberra can go into the library and request to see them
[4].
duffbeerforme (
talk) 05:50, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
- All good points, I agree. I take issue though when you say that I am "Dismissing online sources for not being easily verifiable". I expressly said that the problem with those sources is that "Your "guess" may be right, but in the absence of verifiable reliable sources it would seem challenging to argue that the page in fact satisfies WP:GNG, WP:ACTOR etc" and "it does get a bit difficult to use them as the (sole) basis of an argument to retain the page, doesn't it?". I'm not disputing that anyone in Canberra (or any State Library) would be able to verify those sources. I simply make the point that it is challenging to use such sources, that have not been verified by anyone in this discussion, as the sole basis to keep the page. Cabrils ( talk) 07:44, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
- I have added two further refs, including a ref for his Critic's Choice Award. WWGB ( talk) 06:48, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
- Delete The fact is that the majority of this article is unsourced. In the theater area the first part of the first sentence is the only info that comes from a source. The entirety of the restaurant section is unsourced. The first clause of the first sentence under "television" is the only sourced part. Given that it would be within policy to remove all but the sourced material from this article it would consist of maybe two sentences and the listing of one award. In addition, the notability of the award is not clear. It is in the Elizabethan Trust News, and that publication states: "Critic's Choice, 1975, is not an attempt to sum up the year, but rather to give an impression of the variety of theatre offering." So it's local to that publication and doesn't seem to actually be an award. Lamona ( talk) 01:15, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Given I nominated the page on the basis of not having a single source and there's now some sources, do I still stand by the nomination?? He was on TV and did theatre but there's really not many sources about him. Still, there are some and for people who pre-date the internet, they shouldn't be discriminated against. If the page was rewritten in it's entirely based on the available sources, I would be open to it staying ie all the fluff and bit about the restaurant was scrubbed. But in the current form it's tainted and I'm still standing by my nomination to delete. Whitemancanjump23 ( talk) 06:53, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I do. "Some sources" is not enough - there have to be sources that support all of the content, and the sources need to be significant. Also, the person needs to meet the criteria at WP:CREATIVE. All we have from sources is that he hosted a TV show for children and appeared in a TV commercial; that he renovated his home; and there is one photo to show that he appeared on stage as Charlie Brown. The rest is out of thin air. Lamona ( talk) 15:17, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I think this discussion needs more time and editors to get input about sources that have been added. Sources don't have to be online to be used but having them inaccessible makes evaluating them difficult.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC)- Delete I agree with the reasoning that the majority of the article is without sources and therefore, despite having a good acting career, he did not have a notable one. If more reason is needed, look at the page for the show he hosted, Match Mates which is also what the first clipping is about. It apparently lasted just one year. The reason there is only two clippings is that it never took off. And the show is not interesting enough to get editors to bother bringing it up to even start quality. MtBotany ( talk) 01:20, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: Lack of sources is not a reason to justify deletion: it is a reason to find more and add them to the page, a far more constructive approach. And again, for the record, lack of sources from the internet is not a reason to delete-- offline sources are just as relevant (sometimes more so) as online sources. Having said that, the fundamental issue is does the page currently, or have the potential to, meet WP:GNG, WP:CREATIVE etc? I think this is a finely balanced example and could go either way, but I am still inclined to retain my !vote of weak keep.
Cabrils (
talk) 02:55, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
- What we're doing looking for online sources in this AfD is grasping for reasons not to delete this article. It is giving one last benefit of the doubt to see if this is an encyclopedic subject.
- Yes, a wonderful offline source could exist. However, it also may not. In the absence of evidence we should not assume that the silence means that there is an invisible unicorn holding its breath in the room.
- I do not see this as a finely balanced issue. I think it is a clear delete.
MtBotany (
talk) 03:54, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
- I fundamentally agree with you, although I think you have misunderstood my point. I am not suggesting the page should be kept because of some as-yet-undiscovered "unicorn". I simply make the point that offline sources are valid.
- You are certainly entitled to your view and are encouraged to express it. For brevity I won't repeat here my reasons for why I believe this is finely balanced. Cabrils ( talk) 00:13, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
- Note that the !votes by Lamona and MtBotany are commenting on the current state of the article instead of on the notability of the subject and both fail to address the contents of the book of cuttings held by the National Library of Australia. duffbeerforme ( talk) 04:25, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting one more time. The discussion centers way too much on the sources currently present in the article, instead of wether other sources showing notability perhaps exist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 17:06, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
- 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.