Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dalton James


 * 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. The consensus below is that his body of work and the coverage thereof is sufficient to merit inclusion on Wikipedia. Eluchil404 (talk) 20:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Dalton James

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article provides insufficient notability. Considering the current low amount of Passions reference, how notable is this person? He truly exists; sadly, I don't see why this article must be kept, and his credentials are not very major ever before and since Passions, especially at the time of his career there merely short-lived majors in notable television serials, such as guest roles and soap characters. He may probably pass WP:NACTOR, but this article is very short right now. Even a list of films and TV won't help. --Gh87 (talk) 07:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 15:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)




 * Comment. This was not listed in the AFD log. I've listed it now and added the relist template. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 15:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Small parts in a number of well-known works is enough. The fact that he played MacGyver's long-lost son might be enough by itself. bd2412  T 03:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That was a one-time role. MacGyver is a notable show; this actor can't be well-known for just one role or two.  Even his Passions portrayal for the similar role did not last long; the different actor played that same character.  Even the same character is non-notable for casual readers who barely know or care.  --Gh87 (talk) 04:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per meeting WP:ENT. Even discounting his role as a very significant character in the final MacGyver episode, we have 9 episodes of Crossroads as Dylan Hawkins, 12 episodes of Beverly Hills, 90210 as Mark Reese, and 4 episodes of Passions as Hank Bennett. Returning as a named character in multiple notable productions indicates a significance to storyline and plot that is not seen were he only in minor or un-named descriptive character roles. And beyond WP:ENT, we also have a meeting of WP:GNG when he and his roles are the subject of more-than-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources. Is he the most notable actor that ever lived? No. Is he just notable enough per guideline for inclusion in Wikipedia? Yes. Is the article short? Yes. Does that mean we toss it? Nope.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 09:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If you have been using IMDB, only the Beverly Hills 90210 is accurate. He appeared in hundreds of episodes of soap opera not listed in IMDB.  --Gh87 (talk) 09:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops. Wrong. Immaterial. When using IMDB as a starting point for diligent WP:BEFORE, his work in multiple episodes of Crossroads is easily verifiable and has itself received coverage in multiple reliable sources, just as has his work in multiple episodes of Passions, and just as has his multiple episodes of Beverly Hills, 90210. I need not concern myself with your alleged "hundreds of episodes of soap opera not listed in IMDB" if we already have enough with the 4 researched above to see he meets WP:ENT and WP:GNG. It is an error to judge any actor only by the least of his roles, as even the most notable have had minor roles.  And even were he to vanish from earth and never be heard from again, notability is not temporary.  Any article concerns are best addressed through regular editing... not deletion.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm persuaded by MichaelQSchmidt's comments above that the article does meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:24, 2 November 2011 (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.