Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Malcolm Dixon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Sr13 08:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph_Malcolm_Dixon

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}
AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Joseph Malcolm Dixon
Joseph_Malcolm_Dixon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Pages about an extra that has appeared once is really not prestigous enough for a Wikipedia entry. It also looks like the user created the page about themselves, which is what user pages are for! ~ Analysethis ~ Anonymous Deity ~ Just a n00b ~ 10:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Strong delete There's really nothing there. I mean, at all. Nothing to suggest notability, nothing but pics of him and a line about having a walk-on role. Nothing. God, I wish we could speedy this.--Ispy1981 11:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Why isn't this speediable? Isn't it what we used to call an A7? AndyJones 13:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
      • A7 says there must be no remotely plausible assertion of notability. The sum total of the assertions reek of hoax, but the individual claims don't. "Is a keen footballer any won many trophies with the under 16 team"... while it doesn't meet our notability standards, and has nothing to do with his acting career that's the focus of the article, probably counts. Morgan Wick 16:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete (speedy if available), no assertion of notability. AndyJones 13:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:BIO and is completely WP:NN. --Evb-wiki 12:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • NO DELETE why can't this guy have a page he will work just as hard as any actor to get a role i have heard of him i seen him do stand up a couple years back he was quite funny leave the page it might increase the chance's of him getting work —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanewashere (talk • contribs) — Kanewashere (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete per all of the above especially WP:N and WP:COI. MartinDK 14:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strongest delete possible. Gosh, where to begin? WP:NOTE, WP:BIO, WP:COI, WP:TONE, fails them all. How did this not get speedied? Come on! Realkyhick 15:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete: per A7, no assertion of notability, and frankly I don't see where there'd be any notability even if asserted.  RGTraynor  15:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, normally I do not like to delete bios, but this one has no sources, and poorly written.. If it was written better and had some sources then I would of said Weak Keep. But the author of the piece seems to have not seen any other bio articles to have at least of written it in the style of bios on wikipedia. Callelinea 16:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I also vote for deletion, particularly if nobody can find any sources. I took a stab at cleaning up the style, but I could not verify a single claim the article makes regarding: publication, acting or stand-up work. Notability is only one issue. There may be sources out there, but right now there is nothing to prove that the whole thing isn't fiction. Moonriddengirl 17:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, no significant roles as actor, no sources. NawlinWiki 18:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete no established notability. Acalamari 18:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per WP:SNOW, SPAs notwithstanding. Doesn't appear to have an imdB entry. If Callelinea is voting to delete... Morgan Wick 19:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy per WP:SNOW Bigdaddy1981 20:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • NO DELETE HE DESERVE'S A PAGE LIKE EVERY OTHER ACTOR.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.241.137 (talk • contribs)
  • Like every other actor? I think the point is rather that every actor doesn't deserve a page in an encyclopedia. Bigdaddy1981 20:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Suggestion to User:Kanewashere If you want this to remain on Wikipedia, and assuming it's about yourself, you could copy it to your own userpage, which is here. Wikipedia doesn't approve of using User pages as personal home pages, but most of us say something personal about ourselves on our own user page. Of course, we only really want you to do that if you intend to stay here and be an editor. AndyJones 08:31, 1 July 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.