Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Moorcroft

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 - Philippe 23:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas Moorcroft

Thomas Moorcroft (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Concerns here regard notability and verifiability. Presuming the accuracy of this information, this individual does not seem to meet notability guidelines for entertainers. The role does not seem that significant, as it (and its actor) don't even appear in the list of cast for the film at imdb (even though the bar of inclusion seems low, given that some of the appearances are "rumored"). There's no evidence of other significant work. The only link currently working in the article is to spotlight.com, which does not meet WP:V as It specifies that "The information in this CV has been provided by or on behalf of the client concerned. Every effort has been made to make sure that the information contained in this page is correct and Spotlight can accept no responsibility for its accuracy." I could not substantiate this information through google in this search or this. This was a creator-challenged PROD. Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC) *Keep This article was just recently started, more time should be given to the creator to add references and information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurowoofwoof111 (talk • contribs) 25 March 2008

  • Comment Although time may allow additional verification, notwithstanding my inability to find any, I'm not sure how it will address the notability concerns. The article's creator himself asserts that the actor's "most notable acting role is portraying the character Regulus Black" in a film currently in production. The character's significance to the plot of the story is slim. He isn't mentioned in the summary at Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix or, as I said, in the listing of characters at IMDB. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I would likely agree that the material could be included in that section, if the information can be verified. Currently, there are no reliable sources that verify it and hence its inclusion is problematic with regards to WP:V. (By the way, it's customary to !vote only once. If you've changed your opinion and no longer believe the article should be outright kept, you may wish to put <s> & </s> to either side of your "keep" above to indicate your change of opinion. Also, since you seem unfamiliar, I'll note that comments can be quickly & easily signed by placing four tildes (~~~~) at their end. This expands into your username and a time-stamp and leaves a nice link to your talk page for the benefit of other editors.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - there's no indication that the character in question will have anything but a walk-on at this point, and with no other credits, the whole thing seems premature at best. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete and oppose merge. There are simply no reliable sources to confirm information with and merging unsourced information would be a bad thing. -- Whpq (talk) 13:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per above Cunard (talk) 17:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as all the Google News hits for "Thomas Moorcroft" are for one of two people, both older than this actor, and their interactions with the legal system. Given the high level of public and press interest in the HP franchise it's not unreasonable to expect at least some mention when or of this casting is confirmed at which time the article could be easily recreated. - Dravecky (talk) 06:33, 30 March 2008 (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.