Talk:Mike Pollock (voice actor)

Reinstate the article

Mike Pollock has been much, much more than simply Dr. Eggman. This isn't a Deem Bristow situation where he really doesn't have many roles.Gokaiblue16 (talk) 19:16, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Mile Pollock is a very talented voice actor with a lot of great roles. He is known for so much more other than just Dr. Eggman. There are plenty of reasons as to why he should continue to have his own page, as there is a surplus of information about him and his performances. I have seen firsthand people genuinely looking up Wikipedia to see his other roles, so I am aware that there is demand for a full page on him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrthegamerdude (talk • contribs) 20:16, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

This was a pathetic decision. Could it be that the user that recommended deletion is just jealous? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.75.216 (talk) 19:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

The article did not meet WP:BASIC. You need to bring secondary sources indepedent of the subject, that discuss his roles in detail and that are not Sonic/Eggman. No cast announcements. No casual mentions. No primaries such as screen credits. No Sega blog. No primary-sourced interviews. None of the secondaries were presented during the AFD discussion, so I couldn't get it saved. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

So should I be hiring a PR firm to get media coverage that contributors can then independently discover and contribute? The mainstream media have yet to come beating down my door of their own volition. Itsamike (talk) 21:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Pinging @Czar: for this question. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:46, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

If you are Mike Pollock, (1) I wouldn't expect much help if your strategy is to brigade inexperienced Twitter users. (2) You might be interested in our policy on biographies of living people for ways in which we work with reputations of living people. (3) In short, yes, if you had more coverage of your life in reliable, independent sources (e.g., major newspapers, IGN, GameSpot, etc.) we would likely reconsider a dedicated article. Right now there isn't enough such sourcing to write anything of substance without heavily relying on primary sources. However I've rarely seen happy results when PR firms are involved to circumvent a lack of coverage when said coverage does not come naturally.  czar 22:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Hi Mike. Having an article on Wikipedia doesn't add or subtract from the value of your work. There's a very good essay on the subject at Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. I encourage you to read it. In some cases, having a Wikipedia article about yourself can even be a bad thing, since Wikipedia will report the facts, whatever they are. If you find yourself embroiled in a significant controversy in the future and have a Wikipedia article, you can probably bet on the verifiable details being very publicly available on your Wikipedia page. You could theoretically get media coverage and then come back and ask for someone to write your biography, but that's unlikely to be successful. We require reliable secondary sources for articles. Interviews, etc. which a PR firm could set up would all be primary sources, meaning they wouldn't establish notability. I'm sure you could easily get blogs and the like to write about you through a PR firm, but those wouldn't be reliable, so they also wouldn't establish notability. A PR firm isn't going to be able to get significant secondary coverage of you in the New York Times or even Kotaku without any attached news story. If your heart is really set on being in Wikipedia, the answer would be to go for high-profile roles, but that's far easier said than done. Industry insiders aren't going to look at whether you have a Wikipedia article to determine your value as a voice over artist. The best thing you can do is keep doing what you're doing. Those who try desperately to get media attention usually fail to get coverage or succeed in the wrong way, earning negative coverage as a result. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

His body of work should be enough. If there can be an article for every episode of Seinfeld, then there can be an article for Mike Pollock. Gokaiblue (talk) 22:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

@Gokaiblue: Please read WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. These are the standards by which articles are judged when determining whether an article should be kept on the encyclopedia. While Wikipedia is not made of paper, so we can have many more pages than most encyclopedias can, we still have standards for inclusion to ensure that we're a repository of knowledge on people/events/things that have enduring notability; stuff that people will want to read about long into the future. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:32, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

@BURob13 I have read both, and for the sources aspect, I think it's a little hypocritcal to keep many other VAs articles as I'm sure there aren't much "secondary sources" talking about their roles (depending on how you define the term). As for the notability, he meets 2/3, like most Voice actors. Gokaiblue (talk) 22:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Pinging @Czar: for this response. I am Mike Pollock, Czar, and I approved this message. I appreciate your candid response. I had — and have — no plans to deputize Twitter users of any level of experience, but as my own one-man promotion machine, I like to keep my social media followers informed of important career developments, of which this certainly is one, and since the Talk page is the place to talk about articles, I'd like them to hear what went down from the horses' mouths. It'd be nice if they could air their own thoughts as well, of course. I'd hope they'd do so respectfully.

And Rob, thank you for your well-reasoned and entirely logical explanation. Having read that, I'm much less eager to have my own article. I'm as grateful as I can be for the redirect, since the alternative of a dead-end search is much less appealing. It may not help the people who were looking for info on my other work, but one would hope they have the wherewithal to also search other sources. If it makes your lives easier, I can re-point social media followers back to this page to read your explanations, and suggest they give up their fight with a clear conscience.

I've also noticed the Simple English article is on the chopping block. I'll head over and vote for its similar demise. I don't know if my vote will carry any greater or lesser value than any other, but I'd like the world to know I approved that decision. Itsamike (talk) 22:49, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Just gonna say, you know you're not really doing the website you work for a lot of favours by stating that having a page on here could be undesirable. That quip aside... I gotta say, having an article about a fictional character being more important than the artist who portrayed him for the last decade seems kinda trivializing to me, like implying someone's career is basically equivalent to the most familiar role they're known for. That said, not to throw other VA's under the bus, but having a quick look through the "American male voice actors" list on here, I'm seeing plenty of people who are apparently still notable enough for their own page despite only really being famous for one big role among several "lesser" ones (and in some cases not even that). But hey, that's none of my business. -H Hog (talk) 23:21, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

@H Hog: Hi. Taking things one by one:

1. Bluntly, Wikipedia isn't here for the article subjects. We're here to create a free repository of knowledge accessible to anyone in the world with an internet connection. Wikipedia rarely directly benefits an article's subject, but it definitely benefits the world as a whole by allowing free access to information.
2. We aren't saying anything about importance. Plenty of important topics aren't covered on Wikipedia and many unimportant topics are. When I write content, I primarily focus on creating and improving biographies of Canadian football players. Is any of that important? Definitely not, especially when I'm writing a biography of someone who played in a single regular season game and then got cut. We go purely off of whether someone has coverage in reliable secondary sources or not. A life-long 9 to 5 accountant who saved their company millions of dollars over the course of their career is almost certainly more important than a Canadian football player who played a single game and then spent his life as a cashier, but the football player is more likely to be notable because the media probably covered him. The main reason we go off this system is because we can't properly verify facts about subjects that haven't been written about in a neutral and reliable source.
3. Other stuff existing isn't a good reason for keeping this article, but it could be a good reason to look at whether the other articles should be deleted. If you have particular examples that you think someone should take a look at, please feel free to link them to me and I'll let you know if I think they meet Wikipedia's standards. If they don't, I'll be happy to nominate them for deletion. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Rob, you personally may not be saying anything about importance, but this comment was made to an earlier editor during the recent unpleasantness: "Thank you for reverting your edit to Mike Pollock, since it has been consensed that he is currently unimportant enough to have his own wikipedia article." --‖ Ebyabe [Emphasis added.] Would we consider that a poor choice of words? Itsamike (talk) 00:12, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I would consider that a poor choice of words. It's easy to get confused. "Notability" and "importance" are often interchangeable, but on Wikipedia, "notability" is a technical definition relating to the general notability guidelines. It has no relation to importance here, as evidenced by the fact that it's often easier to get pornography actors into Wikipedia than scientists. For better or for worse, we go by the published sources. Any inherent biases in published sources almost always get picked up by Wikipedia indirectly. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:07, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, Rob. Like everything else I do, we'll leave it to the fate of the casting director. In the meantime, I've got auditons to get to. Thanks. Itsamike (talk) 02:27, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Another option was to throw it back into WP:DRAFT or have it WP:USERFIED. That way a user can develop it with the proper secondary sources. It wouldn't work if Mike himself did that draft because of the WP:COI, but that was offered during the AFD and if there are editors who are willing to continue researching into secondary sources, then the article could be brought back in the future. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:54, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Angus, I understand the COI rules, and I have no intention of revising my own page myself. I just find it amusing that I'm the only true expert on myself, being the only person who's been there for every moment of my entire life, but my words are only valid when they're told to, and filtered through, a published source. But letting Wikipedia be Wikipedia also allows persistent factual errors to persist. I never voiced General Blanque in TMNT 2003, despite several websites that claim otherwise. The only reason I know that is I would've recognized the character's name or face when sourced, but I didn't because I wasn't there for the record. Repetition of factoids does not make them facts. Itsamike (talk) 17:44, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

This is where the primaries definitely help out. One can refer to your tweets, website/blogs, or posts here and have those struck from the relevant articles. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:57, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Excellent point. I'll keep that in mind for the possible future. Itsamike (talk) 18:21, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

@Itsamike: I just want to add I hope you don't take this personally, best of luck with your auditions. =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid87: Thanks. All a part of the job. Itsamike (talk) 19:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

The primaries can be tricky, which is why we prefer reliable secondary sources. What do we do when an aging actress says they're 45 when their birth certificate puts them at 47? What about a game developer who disavows working on a particularly bad title even though sources at the time widely reported that he was the lead developer on the poorly-received game? People lie, and it's hard to know when to draw the line, which is why we usually prefer secondary sources. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Mike Pollock has multiple voice roles and he should have his old page back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.75.216 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Have him interviewed for the Huffington Post, or any major source and we can. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:55, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid87:It's the Catch 22 of getting a major source to be interested in someone who's not been interviewed by a major source. But I'm undeterred. On the bright side, I booked one of those auditions I mentioned, so there's that. Itsamike (talk) 00:29, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes it will help, if I could I would pull out some reliable sources out for you but editors have made the effort in looking. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:35, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I am a little confused why it's a redirect page if it was deleted. Clicking on Mike Pollock from his credited role of being the Narrator from Pokemon Chronicles or Raoul Contesta from the normal Pokemon anime shouldn't take me to Dr. Eggman. I feel like that's reason enough to undo the deletion. But I know you guys have your rules on why the page shouldn't be there, so I feel like at least the page shouldn't even be a redirect to Eggman if it can't exist on it's own. That's just me though. 64.25.201.13 (talk) 09:56, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

That's a fair outlook. You could follow the instructions at WP:RFD to nominate the redirect for deletion if you wanted to. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:20, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't see why this was an issue to begin with. Mike has had plenty of voice-over roles besides Eggman. It's like merging Charles Martinet's with Mario's article just because that his most well-known voice role. He's not some entity that exists solely to voice Dr. Eggman, so reducing his article to a redirect link for Dr. Eggman is downright disrespectful to Mr. Pollock. At least with his own article, we can add more information on Mike's career, personal life, etc. later on. Just because he's not known for much else right now doesn't mean he won't be known for it later on. Plus, with sites like IMDB and BehindTheVoiceActors.com, which have his works readily available for research, it's ridiculous that one can't find at least a dozen notable roles that he's played. 70.92.179.85 (talk) 13:43, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

It's not a question of whether we need references that shows he voices other characters. We have plenty of that. BTVA deals with that. So would primary sources such as cite video game or cite episodes. It's a question of finding the secondary sources independent of the subject to meet WP:GNG. Bring those, and then reinstating an article could be considered. So far no one has, other than one reference from a Sonic book and that fits more in a casual mention. Do you have any? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:04, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I really don't get what Mike's article lacked that all those other voice actors did. I'm not sure what more you could want. Do you want me to e-mail Mike and ask him for something, or link an interview he did? 70.92.179.85 (talk) 03:40, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Above, you can actually see that we spoke to Mike. His username is Itsamike, and he verified his identity via Twitter after I requested he do so on his talk page, so it's really him. After discussing this with him here and at his user talk page, Mike is okay with the article redirecting as it currently does, and we're investigating other options to improve the encyclopedia while noting his role as a voice actor. One option we're exploring is obtaining a free image of several of the Sonic voice actors to place in relevant articles, which would certainly be something that could improve those articles.

The tricky thing here is that our notability guidelines require significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Something like an interview can't show the impact that Mike's had as a voice actor because an interview is him talking about himself - not independent coverage. You're right that this can be tricky for voice actors, since they aren't emphasized as much as live-action acting professionals. Unfortunately, Wikipedia tends to pick up any biases that occur in major news sources as a result of how we define notability, and the media is somewhat biased against voice actors. It's one of the cons of the way we determine notability, but we don't really have a better way to weed out the stuff that truly doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:14, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Did the people who made this choice even look him up or just listen to people who don't even know him.

First off, Mike has a major list of credits, not just Sonic but in many other Movies, Games and Shows. I am not that good at editing Wiki but I have done it for more then one site and I at least know to find sources before making a change like that. (looking at the list from the Articles for deletion/Mike Pollock: Revision history) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocks the Squirrel (talk • contribs) 00:02, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Once again, you're using IMDB as a source which is not reliable. See WP:IMDB/RS AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 09:11, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

References

Removal

(Other section removed in talk discussion concerning myself AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 09:27, 3 August 2016 (UTC))

Why was the section removed in the first place to redirect to a single work he's done?

That's very unprofessional and quite silly, as said, we shouldn't have to click is name in Pokemon's wiki and then be brought to his Dr. Eggman role with no information on the man himself.

Please restore his page. SebbyTH1 (talk) 08:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC) SebbyTH1

Entertainers[edit source] Shortcuts: WP:ENT WP:ENTERTAINER WP:NACTOR WP:NMODEL Actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and celebrities: Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

He has all this so whats the issue but you don't like it. Rocks the Squirrel (talk) 08:30, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Rocks the Squirrel, have you read anything in the AFD or the above discussion? It's not a question of whether I like it or not. You'll have to convince the folks who voted to delete the page that you have provided enough secondary sources independent of the subject before restoring this page. My user page has nothing to do with this. See WP:USERPAGE If you want to make this page as a draft or userfy this page, you can develop it that way. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 09:08, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Article moved to draft

Given the recent attempts to restore the article, I have moved it over to draft. You can work on it there. But it will not be restored as a regular article until it meets WP:GNG. Otherwise it'll be AFD'ed again. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 09:26, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I would like to add that the current sources in the article are very poor. This is one of the main issues that needs to be addressed before it can be moved back to the main space. IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes, Behind the Voice are not reliable as there is no editorial oversight. They also do not provide enough in-depth information to prove notability. This link is a primary source and is also just a list of credits so not enough to prove notabilty. Also, the Biography of Living Persons Policy still applies to articles in Draft space and I will remove any unsourced content that would potentially violate this policy. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:28, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Behind The Voice Actors can be used to source credits, but they require the check-mark leading to screenshots. WP:ANIME/RS#Situational But as of this edit, there hasn't been any activity since I did some scrubbing on August. Still waiting to see if there is any significant improvement. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

There are way too many unreliable sources in this draft and given how reliant the the article is in using them this seems counter productive. They don't solve the issues the original article had and if anything compound the issue. Fan sites and blogs are not reliable so sources yet the article isn't filled with them.SephyTheThird (talk) 19:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

This voice actor has been interviewed an nth number of times for his role of Eggman, and the citations are there to prove that claim, to show viewers just how notable Mike is (WP:GNG). There are plenty of other reliable citations, particularly Sega's official website/blog and ANN that show that Mike is known for other significant roles other than just Eggman (WP:ENT), both of which were concerns of the previous AFD. Had I known of the AFD, I would be completely opposed against it as it only needed better sourcing to prove Mike's notability outside of his role of Eggman. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 10:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Which you haven't provided. All you've done is spam in non reliable sources. This does not improve the article nor does it make it notable. They certainly would not have affected the AFD as people would have said they were not reliable sources. Yes, ANN(assuming it's the right area of the site) and Sega's official blog are notable but that doesn't excuse all the fansites. SephyTheThird (talk) 12:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Don't accuse me of spamming. The article should have never been deleted in the first place when all it needed was better sourcing. The amount of flak and controversy gained from the AFD is proof enough that Mike is obviously very, very notable. I do follow Wikipedia policies, but honestly, if that kind of awful precedent is set, we could honestly say goodbye to 90% of voice actor articles, seiyu or English VAs. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 17:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I've now removed most, if not all of the clearly unreliable sources on the page. Of all the ones that looked like they should be removed only one appeared to be written by a possible reliable source. The rest consist entirely of fan blogs and forums and fail WP:RS. Nothing good will come of stuffing an article full of sources that are going to be questioned and relying on them just strengthens the outcome of the previous AFD. Their is no need to rush this draft and it will be taken much more seriously if it uses better sources and doesn't rely on all of those clearly unreliable sites. Note that simply having an interview with someone does not make it a credible reliable source. Also note that using self published sources such as blogs on biographies of living people is against wikipedia policy WP:BLPSPS. SephyTheThird (talk) 12:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Fighting Foodons

I'm afraid that you would have to buy the book in order to see proof that Mike voiced Hot Doggone-It. Homechallenge55 (talk) 21:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Didn't have to for this page: [1]. But if I did, then it would fall under WP:PAYWALL and WP:RSC. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mike Pollock (voice actor). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150923085525/http://www.sonicthehedgehog.com/boom/en/sonic-boom-tv-overview/sonic-tv-credits/ to http://www.sonicthehedgehog.com/boom/en/sonic-boom-tv-overview/sonic-tv-credits/

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) 14:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Self-pub tweets need more sourcing

Example:

OK

1. news article: X features the voice of Mike Pollock
2. Mike's Tweet: I voice Y in X

Not OK

1. Mike's Tweet (answering to "Do you voice Y in X"). Yes, that's me

Better:

1. news article: Mike Pollock voices Y.

Please note that a BTVA checkmarked entry that points to his tweet counts only as just his tweet. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:15, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

sourcing middle name and family members

Middle name needs to be sourced. Same with spouse's name / marriage year, and children's names. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:16, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• MikePollock2014.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:25, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Casual Antisemitism Much?

Last I checked, it was 2022. Why would the fact(!) that I'm Jewish be up for debate? Is there suddenly something wrong with that? It's hardly a joke, let alone a stupid one. I find your disbelief of my faith disturbing…. Itsamike (talk) 05:21, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Replace headshot of Mike

Mike Pollock has shared before that he doesn't like the headshot used and request for a more professional headshot of him, primarily the one he uses at conventionz. Belizean1958 (talk) 18:31, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Controversy on Twitter

Should we add stuff about his recent controversy to the article? He recently made comments on the Israel-Palestine conflict that garnered a lot of criticism, it even trended on Twitter. But I'm not sure if this is a notable enough event to be mentioned here. Mariosonic500 (talk) 06:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

@Mariosonic500: There are no reliable sources addressing this, so the controversy should not be covered in the article in the first place. WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE should be reviewed regarding things like social media controversies. It should also be noted that the Arab-Israeli conflict has been formally designated as a contentious topic on Wikipedia. ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (talk | contribs) 18:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the above. Controversies like this should usually only be added if they actually effect the person's career, like with Vic Mignogna, Chris Niosi, Scott Freeman, etc. Link20XX (talk) 19:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

There is this source [2] discussing the basics of it and how it caused him to be recast in a role. Not sure if the controversy information is substantial enough to add (A brief search yields only this) but the recast information at a minimum seems valuable. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I added information about it to the article on the basis that TheGamer has been deemed generally reliable on Wikipedia before it was removed by someone else, who questioned its importance. Yeah, it may be best to leave it like that; I still see TheGamer coming off as "content farmy". At least the Gamefam controversy, which was first addressed by TheGamer, would later have more reliable sources like Polygon back it. ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (talk | contribs) 21:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC)