Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jay Hunter

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:16, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Hunter

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of an actor, with no strong claim to passing WP:NACTOR and no strong reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG in lieu. His notability as an actor is staked on minor and guest roles, mostly as unnamed characters, and being in a beefcake calendar, and the referencing is stacked almost entirely onto unreliable sources like IMDb and glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other people, except for a miniscule sprinkling of "local guy does stuff" coverage in his own hometown newspaper. And there's also a significant amount of reference bombing going on here, with many facts referenced to three or four of those weak sources apiece instead of just one good one. Nothing here, either in the sourcing or the substance, constitutes a reason why he would qualify for a Wikipedia article -- a person has to have had major roles, not walk-ons as "Cop #2", to pass NACTOR, and they have to have reliable source coverage in real media to support it, not just a bombardment of directory pages on IMDb or an IMDb wannabe. Bearcat (talk) 19:45, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The person in question is a notable side actor. Annakoppad (talk) 04:28, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which you need to properly demonstrate by reliably sourcing the article to media coverage about his acting, if you expect that to be taken as an actual reason why the article would get kept. Bearcat (talk) 06:53, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Small actors with a good track record cannot have a page on themselves. Even otherwise, the article passes WP:Basic. Also it does not suffer from lack of references." Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article." I will try and add more references. Please do not delete the page. Thanks in advance, Annakoppad (talk) 04:53, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We don't judge an article's keepability by the raw number of footnotes that it has — we judge its keepability by how many good references it has. Not all possible references are valid or notability-supporting ones: IMDb and blogs cannot be used to support notability, for instance. We require media coverage about his acting before we can deem the article to be properly referenced and keepable — and that's not what you've been showing. The referencing test is a matter of quality, not quantity — for example, an article that has just one footnote can be considered better referenced than an article that has 30 footnotes, if the 30 are all IMDB and blogs while the one is an entry in the Encyclopedia Britannica. Bearcat (talk) 18:28, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Minor roles with generic titles like "Firefighter" and "Pawnshop Man" don't satisfy NACTOR, nor do I see any significant press coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:14, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a bunch of super minor roles does not add up to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:02, 16 November 2017 (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.