Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathaniel Holt

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 of the debate was delete. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nathaniel Holt

Notability not established, he's an extra in a couple of minor films. Usrnme h8er 15:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Nathaniel Holt is a working actor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.201.149.66 (talk • contribs)

• Delete per nomination. Yes, he's a working actor but not every working actor is notable enough for Wikipedia, and Mr Holt certainly is not. Madman 16:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Good luck to Nathaniel in his career, but three uncredited film appearances doesn't merit an article at the moment. Tyrenius 16:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Three uncredited appearances in unnamed roles (such as "Audience member"), one job as a stand-in. Does that make him a "working actor"? I guess so, technically. Does that get him an encyclopedia entry? I don't think so. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and others. The guy doesn't have one credited role EVAR. This could even be a hoax, but at best it's "goat-flingingly non-notable" --Deville (Talk) 00:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Deville. "uncredited" listings on IMDB have been shown to be unreliable in the past, and even if true they generally mean "third guy from the right in scene 37". Fan1967 17:54, 29 April 2006 (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.