Jump to content

Talk:Doug Chapman (stuntman)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Speedy deletion

[edit]

I have tagged this page for speedy deletion. Working as a stunt double does not appear to meet the criteria for a notable entertainer.

Ehb (talk) 21:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You really should have tagged it with {{PROD}}, it's not a candidate for speedy deletion and he has been in a heck of alot of notable movies. If you tag it with a prod template that will be removed as I feel it shouldn't be deleted as do some other editors, and in the interests of neutrality I will tell you that it'll probably have to go to WP:AFD where the community can decide. But you will have to tag it with {{PROD}} first Million_Moments (talk) 06:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that the article meets the criteria for deletion from Wikipedia - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion I have no qualms with his deletion from the CSU page. That's up to anyone interested in that page. Happy to discuss further but would appreciate further discussion of criteria before you think of tagging, cheers. Fififolle (talk) 09:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And also you should have informed the articles creator on their talk page. Million_Moments (talk) 15:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I don't really want to argue the finer points, but just to show that I was acting in good faith I'd like to point out that, in my reading of the guides, it would seem that this page is a candidate for speedy deletion. In WP:BIO it says "If the article does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, use the {{db-person}} tag to request speedy deletion." I respectfully disagree with Million_Moments' point about the notability of this person. Although I agree that the subject has been in a lot of notable movies, it doesn't seem that any of the following criteria for entertainers are met (criteria from WP:BIO with my added emphasis):

  • Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions.
  • Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
  • Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

From what I can see there's no evidence that the actor's roles have been "significant," nor does it seem that the actor has a "cult" following, nor does it seem that the actor's work is viewed as "unique, prolific, or innovative." It appears that the subject has mostly acted as a stunt performer, which seems to me to be a truly insignificant role. Really though, I don't care if this page remains. I'm not offended by it. I just thought I was doing the right thing ("be bold"). I do believe that this page fails the criteria, but it's not worth my time to try to prove that anyone else! Ehb (talk) 17:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the our interpretation of "If the article does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, use the {{db-person}} tag to request speedy deletion." differs. This article does indicate why Chapman is notable by the statement that Chapman is an actor and stunt preformer. However, you disagree with the argument of notability presented. WP:Speedy Deletion states that "Articles that seem to have obviously non-notable subjects are only eligible for speedy deletion if the article does not assert the importance or significance of its subject." This article asserts that Chapman has been a stunt preformer in several notable movies and stunt doubles for notable actors, and the notability is based on that, thus preventing it from being deleted via the speedy deletion route. Million_Moments (talk) 19:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it's all down to what one classes as significant. I suspect there are dozens of Wikipedia pages of people who have not been in dozens of notable films or provided an influential affect on the film industry. There wouldn't be many bigraphies left, I suspect. Doug Chapman is highly respected in his field, and has had key roles in films which are important on both a cult and cultural level, even if they are not within everyone's scope of interest. What is significant to some may not be significant to others. I don't like to point it out, Ehb, but your opinion that stunt performers are insignificant would be disputed by everyone in the film industry. The quotes from actors in the article by James Marsters and Robert Englund are there to make this point. Stunt performers are an incredibly important sector of the film industry, and the top stunt performers in film genres attract some significant interest within the cultural sector. I do appreciate your bold attitude though. Tried it myself for a while. I put my energies into other areas now... Fififolle (talk) 18:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think if you applied this rationale to other skilled workers in the film industry, you'd have several hundred pages just to document the people who made "significant" contributions just to the Lord of the RIngs trilogy. There comes a point where someone has made an important contribution without being significant, and we will just have to agree to disagree. Ehb (talk) 06:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Doug Chapman (stuntman). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:28, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Doug Chapman (stuntman). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:30, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Doug_Chapman_(stuntman)&oldid=1200787589"