Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Jackson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete. --Spinboy 19:00, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Matthew Jackson

Non notable student actor. Vanity article. Fails pokemon test. Delete. --Spinboy 06:58, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • KEEP* Specifically pertaining to Spinboy in terms of Jackson's notability and references: Jackson is established actor in his hometown (credits include "A Midsummer Nights Dream" and "Dudley the Lonely Dragon"). The fact that Spinboy actually wrote 'fails pokemon test' proves that Jackson is far superior than those who vote for his deletion. User: Simmer
  • Delete, not notable, reads like a puff piece. Matthew Jackson + "Calum Marsh" gets no google hits that pertain to him. Delete Image:Wikipedia.JPG as well. Xezbeth 07:01, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 12:09, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • [[DO NOT DELETE.]] i know him personally and this is not a vanity article. Every fact in here is 100% true. Calum Marsh and Matthew Jackson are real, just because there are no google entries, does not mean they "do not exisit". Google doesnt have everything. DO NOT DELETE. this is factual.
    • Just because it's factual doesn't make it notable. Above 'vote' from User:Sades1313. --Spinboy 16:48, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Why would it not be notable? People can be notable in their own rights. just because u dont know who he is, doesnt mean others dont and it doesnt make him "not notable"--sades1313 16:51, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • He needs to have done something outside of Carleton to be notable. Like being in a film at the Cannes Film Festival or Sundance Film Festival, or a major motion picture, and a role besides an extra. Appearing in a student film doesn't make him notable. --Spinboy 16:53, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • [[DO NOT DELETE.]] keep. i searched them. and i got info. it made my day.
  • Delete. Maybe he'll be a notable actor a few years from now. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 18:38, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, no one is denying that the subject of the article is a real person, but not everyone is notable. Firebug 18:47, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable, vanity. --InShaneee 19:08, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn, no more notable than Calum Marsh. RickK 19:53, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • "The above vote is from User:216.249.53.163 and looks shockingly a lot like that of User:Sades1313. " WRONG. not me. nice try though. Why dont you prove that he isnt notable. just because you cant find information on him from google, doesnt mean he isnt notable. Google isnt god, it doesnt know about everything. it has to have been put there in order for google to find it. Whats the big deal, why not leave it there. what does it hurt and he might just be note worthy in the books of many, just because you dont think he is, doesnt mean he isnt.and another thing, Calum Marsh has had his movies played in film festivals and theatres, isnt that notable?! --sades1313 20:11, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • It's not up to us to prove he is notable. It's up to the people working on the article to provide back up references, etc. --Spinboy 20:47, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sock-puppetry never helps one's cause. The subject of the article is decidedly non-notable, however, so my vote would be the same in the absence of puppets. Feco 21:09, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity/promo. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:04, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity, sockpuppet supported. Jayjg (talk) 06:19, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as nonnotable and probable vanity. If User:Mattjackson is, by any chance, Matthew Jackson, another acceptable possibility would be to "userfy" it, i.e. move it to his currently blank personal user page, where it would be perfectly appropriate. If User:Mattjackson wants this done, he should say so here. (Anyone know what the GFDL issues are in userfying a page that has more than one contributor?) Dpbsmith (talk) 14:36, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I couldn't forsee an issue in this. But I doubt that user is here to do anything but promote his own page. --Spinboy 16:57, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.