Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ainsley Brooks (2nd nomination)

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. The keep arguments were, on the most part, unpersuasive. Daniel 03:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ainsley Brooks

Ainsley Brooks (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Extra, bit-part actor, and highly unlikely to be the subject of an independent biography any time soon. Sources are not independent. Guy (Help!) 19:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete. He may become notable but he doesn't seem to be quite there yet. Stifle (talk) 20:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable extra. ^anemone|_projectors 21:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - Jane Slaughter is another extra on Eastenders and she has her own page and I feel that Ainsley is more notable than Jane as Ainsley has worked for BBC Radio one, also if someone provides some more sources and an update then I say Keep. Beck 22:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - not a valid argument - see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. ^anemone|_projectors 23:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I think that Ainsley is notable enough, fair enough if he was just an extra, but he has also worked for Top of the Pops and BBC Radio One and soon to be in an upcoming movie. Keep! :) Lillyanntuber 23:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - He's Notable 208.103.64.99 10:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and Clean - I did some minor tidying, but know nothing about him. I feel he's notable enough, so keep Jemma-ohla 14:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Keep and Clean up as per all above Youtune989 17:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - He's 'just' notable, keep and Clean as per all above Fab0u0lous 00:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete -- our rules say that someone has to produce a reliable source to prove notability per our Notability Guideline. Until someone does that, the article needs to go. I think it will be hard to find such a reference since, using Google News Archive search feature, I found no news items to establish Brooks as notable by our criteria. --A. B. ^(talk) 05:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- A. B. ^(talk) 05:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletions. -- A. B. ^(talk) 05:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. -- A. B. ^(talk) 05:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Extra and bit part roles don't qualify someone as notable, and there are no independent sources to qualify him either. Even his main employers seem not to have written anything about him [1] Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 09:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Apart from all arguments on this page stating Ainsley's lack of notability, the article also lacks any references to assert any notability. --Slartibartfast1992 21:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Never mind about the references. I guess the external links could be turned into references... but still, delete. --Slartibartfast1992 21:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

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.