Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Callum Dixon


 * 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 keep‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 22:13, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Callum Dixon

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:NACTOR, only appears in generic articles listing actors. No non-trivial coverage from any secondary sources.  dummelaksen   (talk • contribs) 15:50, 30 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions.  dummelaksen   (talk • contribs) 15:52, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and England.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:02, 30 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Neutral. The article is pretty bare bones, and a lot of the links have gone dead, but I think someone should dig a little deeper before we rush to delete this.  He has done a lot of work in West End theatre and other UK theatre.  Playbill wrote a paragraph about his work here.  More theatre credits here. He has also done quite a bit of TV work, but I don't know how significant his roles were.
 * The Playbill article isn't about him and only lists his works − I don't think that qualifies as coverage.  dummelaksen   (talk • contribs) 16:21, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:17, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. There's something there, but it's borderline:, . Suitskvarts (talk) 13:12, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: Relisting because of the Weak Keeps. This tilts the discussion to a No Consensus closure unless an another week brings in more participants who can provide additional sources or a further source analysis. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak keep/on the fence, this person definitely seems to have been active in many stage productions, and I can see many passing mentions to him in the newspaper archives, but not a great deal of WP:SIGCOV. However I did some across this newspaper article from 1991 (see preview here) which is a column dedicated to discussing his work and is some way towards significant coverage, which leads me to think there will be more coverage in the archives (more likely the BNA). Looking through the BNA search results from the '90s shows numerous mentions in other publications, however many are indeed trivial so I remain weak in my !vote. Bungle (talk • contribs) 10:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Also for anyone with BNA access, this article is decent sigcov of the subject from a 1990 edition of the Leicester Mercury (edit: now clipped for free here). I am thinking, based on the search results, this person can pass WP:BASIC. Bungle (talk • contribs) 11:26, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak Keep: Per the sources provided by others, this subject has just enough WP:SIGCOV to meet the GNG, mainly via the Leicester Mercury article and aforementioned 1991 article from Bungle. Let&#39;srun (talk) 02:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, per above  Brachy 08  (Talk) 02:47, 14 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. WP:BASIC is met. The Leicester Mercury source is an ideal starting point. Note also that BASIC says If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability, making exception for trivial coverage, where examples of trivial coverage include statements by the subject, jobs the subject has undertaken, database entries and the like. As such, we can examine sources for short but non-trivial coverage to establish BASIC. Reading through proquest you get lots of short-but-non-trivial bits of coverage. In fact based on these first 3 sources, we have verifiability that multiple critics thought the subject was funny in his role as the pizza man in Mr Kolpert.
 * A key comic catalyst is Callum Dixon's hilariously bemused pizza man, who keeps arriving with the wrong order at the worst possible times, his knock regularly confused with the knock that seems to be coming from inside the trunk.
 * Callum Dixon is hilarious as the pizza man who finds he has stepped into social mayhem.
 * Meanwhile, Callum Dixon's bemused little pizza man keeps arriving with the wrong order and blundering into scenes that would faze a hardened war correspondent.
 * Max Stafford- Clark's mesmerising production features an outstanding cast, ably led by lippy Callum Dixon ....
 * Matters aren't helped by Stephen Rayne's laborious direction and some startlingly unsubtle acting. Honourable exceptions include Callum Dixon's Nat, whose Cockney chirpiness is convincingly edged with menace ...
 * ''... and her horse-mad son, wirily incarnated by Callum Dixon.
 * ... Callum Dixon, 26, has just completed a run at the National in The Day I Stood Still.
 * But the play is never less than provocatively entertaining, and under John Burgess's direction there are striking performances from Charlotte Cornwell as the standup therapist, Callum Dixon as the anxious construction worker ...
 * Adrian Scarborough captures precisely Horace's mixture of romantic longing and fear of commitment. Callum Dixon is also suitably tentative as his younger self ...
 * This list is far from exhaustive, I didn't even check every result in ProQuest. And there appears to be quite a bit more in The Daily/Sunday Telegraph archives for which I don't have full text access. There will surely be more in other archives than ProQuest. &mdash;siro&chi;o 06:38, 14 August 2023 (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.