Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jon Simanton

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. SilverSurfingSerpant is a blocked sockpuppet and as such his view is discounted. As the article has had 7 days to be improved the argument that it should be given time to improve has little weight. Therefore the delete arguments showing the article fails the two applicable notability guidelines have the consensus here. Davewild (talk) 16:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Simanton

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

Non-notable actor. I dream of horses (T) @ 12:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 12:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 12:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP – Notable actor. Listed with multiple acting credits in IMDb. Meets notability for actors, per WP:NACTOR. (LOL. I created this article all of two minutes ago, literally. So, it is still a work in progress. This editor has quite the itchy finger, to nominate it for deletion within two minutes of its creation. LOL.) Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 12:33, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while I appreciate that the article is new and would normally vote to keep, this is highly concerning. As that article indicates, he had only minor roles, and the charge (and admission of guilt) would be the whole bio and possibly violate WP:UNDUE. You would have to have significant additional content to balance it out. Even though he died in February, WP:BLP applies after recent deaths (WP:BDP). —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your point. He is either notable or he is not. What does that "concerning" report (about his arrest) have to do with anything? Are you saying that if that "concerning" report did not exist, that would influence whether he is notable or not? Also, the question of whether or not he is notable is a different question than the question of what content should be in his article. When I read your comment above, to me, it says: "I would normally vote to keep this guy with an article, but because he had a criminal charge against him, I will vote to delete". Did I misread? That's the same exact thing as saying: "This guy is notable. But as soon as he was arrested, he became non-notable." Huh? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:59, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Give it time to expand. That's what Wikipedia's for after all. Rusted AutoParts 23:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I believe the actor is, in fact, notable. Also, you can give the article time to expand. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 01:52, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why has wikipedia become a place where people believe that work on an article can correct a subject's notability? I'm not seeing any criteria at WP:NACTOR that Jon Simanton fulfills. WP:NACTOR requires multiple significant roles, all of these listed on Imdb seem to be minor roles. Fails WP:GNG also. ― Padenton|✉ 13:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that anyone believes that "work on an article can correct a subject's notability". I think that the underlying idea is that the person is notable, but that the article still needs work. And no one has yet gotten to that work. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:10, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you are misinterpreting WP:NACTOR. WP:NACTOR does not "require" multiple significant roles, as you claim. You are cherry-picking sections from the policy. The policy states, quote: "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability. Editors may find these criteria helpful when deciding whether to tag an article as requiring additional citations (using {{BLP sources}} for example) ..." (emphasis added). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, by all means, explain how he passes notability under WP:NOTABILITY. WP:NOTABILITY requires that he either meets WP:GNG or meets one of the subject-specific notability guidelines. Unless there is something else Jon Simanton is known for, the only subject-specific notability guideline that applies is WP:NACTOR, where he does not meet any of the criteria. I see no evidence that WP:GNG is met, given that a google search returns: 1) a local news item that is clearly referring to a different Jon Simanton; 2) a mention on a horror blog (which provides no coverage); 3) an article on his arrest in TMZ (tabloid journalism, not a reliable source, nor significant coverage.); 4) another brief mention at a scifi/horror imdb wannabe. So, can you explain to us exactly which criteria Jon Simanton meets? ― Padenton|✉ 17:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You made a statement that was false and I corrected you, so that whoever reads this discussion will be aware of that. You stated, quote: "WP:NACTOR requires multiple significant roles ... ". That is an entirely false statement so, for the record here, I corrected you. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To meet the requirement of notability, the subject of an article must meet WP:GNG or one of the subject-specific notability guidelines, while not being excluded by WP:WWIN. I see nothing showing that WP:GNG has been met, and you are now refusing to provide any. Unless you plan on arguing that criterions 2 or 3 are met, then yes, WP:NACTOR requires that the actor "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." You claimed above that he meets WP:NACTOR, yet I see nothing to support that claim. ― Padenton|✉ 14:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable actor; fails WP:NACTOR. Quis separabit? 13:41, 28 May 2015 (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.