Talk:Jeffrey Johnson (actor)

Response to suggestion article be deleted

"The linked IMDb article indicates several small roles played by the subject, but IMDb is not a reliable source."

response: IMDB is very heavily regulated, so I'm not sure how you're supporting your argument that it is not a reliable source. Moreover, IMDB is quite liberally sourced on hundreds, if not thousands, of wiki entries. I'm not sure how you're categorizing "small roles." Guest appearance on TV shows are not small roles, either are being a principle in a television movie.

"Non-trivial coverage in reliable sources is lacking."

response: perhaps we differ on the definition of "trivial" as I understand the word to have two definitions, namely: commonplace; and of little importance. I'm not sure the coverage in this case fits either definition.

"According to the article, 'His most notable achievement was serving as the spokesperson' for a state-wide energy conservation campaign. However, no sources substantiating this claim are currently cited, and even if true, such would be only marginal evidence of notability."

response: This has been corrected.

Overall, it seems like are you suggested the article be edited more than deleted.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fritztastic (talk • contribs) 11:44, 23 March 2008

I did suggest that it be deleted, since notability has not been established. If it were edited in a certain way (citing reliable sources that prove notability), I would change my position, but I have not seen that yet. Currently, the only source cited is IMDb, which is considered an unreliable source. If any Wikipedia articles cite it as if it were a reliable source, they are in error. This page shows that IMDb is considered unreliable: "Trivia on sites such as IMDb or FunTrivia should not be used as sources. These media do not have adequate levels of editorial oversight or author credibility and lack assured persistence." Since "(a)ny person with an e-mail account and a web browser that accepts cookies can set up an account with IMDb that allows them to submit information," IMDb cannot be considered any more reliable than an online forum or a wiki, which are largely unacceptable as sources.

This guideline says that actors are considered notable if they have "had significant roles or been featured multiple times in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions," have "a large fan base or a significant 'cult' following," or have "made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." Assuming reliable sources can be found to back up the information, Jeffrey Johnson might fulfill the first criterion. However, such sources must be found and cited in the article if notability is to be established--IMDb won't cut it. Newspaper or magazine articles would fulfill this requirement, assuming that they give significant and independent coverage of Jeffrey Johnson. There may yet be reliable online sources that can be found to help out too, but I did not find any. Perhaps you will have better luck. I strongly suggest finding such sources, as the article in its current state is a reasonable candidate for deletion, since notability has not been proven. Nick Graves (talk) 22:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)